View the article hereThese laws are NOT about protecting children, they are about banishment, period, end of story. How is a "buffer zone" going to protect anybody from a predator who is intent on committing another crime? Do you really think they will obey the law now that you've placed some "buffer zone" up? No! It could be 50 or 100 miles and it would make no difference.07/29/2007Sex offenders in the Fox Cities are becoming increasingly unwelcome.
Several communities resumed discussions in the past week on sex offender regulations, including restrictions that would prohibit offenders from living near areas frequented by children.
But when a 2,000-foot buffer is placed around parks, schools and day care centers, for example, nearly all habitable land in any Fox Cities urban area becomes off-limits, an analysis by The Post-Crescent has found.
Additionally, more than two-thirds of the roughly 450 registered sex offenders listed as living in Outagamie and northern Winnebago counties reside within 2,000 feet of those places, the newspaper found.
In March, Green Bay became the first large city in the region to adopt a 2,000-foot ordinance, effectively banning sex offenders from living in 93 percent of the city, unless they get special permission.
The move ignited a sprawling debate on the issue as leaders in other communities, fearing an overflow of offenders, are considering ordinances. Little Chute passed a similar 2,000-foot rule last month, followed by Hortonville earlier this month. Like Green Bay, the vast majority of land in the two villages is now off-limits to sex offenders, unless they lived there prior to the ordinances.
State Department of Corrections officials worry the region is heading down a dangerous path — creating a false sense of security while inadvertently driving offenders underground.
"Sex offenders have to live somewhere," said Melissa Roberts, director of sex offender programs for the state agency, which is in charge of maintaining the state's Sex Offender Registry. "We haven't taken a position on these ordinances, but there is evidence they can reduce public safety by decreasing compliance with the registry."
Advocates for the restrictions say they're only looking out for the safety of their communities. David Peterson, chief of the Fox Valley Metro Police Department, which serves Kimberly and Little Chute, said he's only heard positive comments from Little Chute residents since the Village Board passed its ordinance last month. The same rule has been proposed in Kimberly.
"I don't see how this ordinance can hurt us," Peterson said. "Could it hurt us if we don't pass it? Possibly. I think we should err on the side of safety."
Most fall in zone
The Post-Crescent's analysis, based on June data from the Department of Corrections and maps from local communities, showed that at least 71 percent of registered sex offenders in Outagamie County live within 2,000 feet of a park, school or daycare. Fifty percent live within two or more places.
In Appleton, 139 of 168 registered offenders reside within the would-be buffer zones. In the towns and cities of Neenah and Menasha, the number is 99 out of 102 offenders.
At a meeting Tuesday of leaders from Buchanan, Clatyon, Combined Locks, Freedom, Harrison, Kaukauna, Kimberly and Little Chute, some expressed wariness about passing an ordinance without first studying its effects in Green Bay.
Appleton Mayor Tim Hanna doesn't expect the debate to surface in his city.
He said residency ordinances don't address the fact that offenders can still drive or loiter in areas where children congregate even if they can't live nearby. At the same time, the rules could make parents let their guards down.
"I'm not interested in having a long debate about this, because I don't think it solves any problems," Hanna said. "Vigilance by parents and families is what is going to keep children safe."
'I don't deserve that'
Michael Brown, a registered sex offender living in Little Chute, was grandfathered into that village's ordinance and will not have to move despite living within the new 2,000-foot buffer zone.
Still, if he decided to move, he wouldn't be welcome in the vast majority of the village he's called home for six years.
He finds the ordinance an attack on his rights. He said he served his sentence and has been on the right side of the law ever since.
"I don't deserve that," Brown said.
Brown, 48, was convicted in Waukesha County in 1994 for the sexual assault of a child younger than 16. He served a 90-day work release sentence and was placed on probation for five years.
He now has a wife of nearly 11 years, he's a father, and he hasn't had any violations since that conviction more serious than a speeding ticket. He's abided by the terms of the registry.
Brown's wife, Sheri, said it's incredible to think they wouldn't be allowed to live in the greater part of Little Chute if they moved. She said her husband isn't a threat.
"He doesn't drink, he doesn't smoke — his biggest downfall is his boob tube over there," she said pointing at the television.
Connie Hietpas, a neighbor of the Browns, said there's no reason to place such strong regulations on Michael Brown.
His status on the registry had been the topic of neighborhood chatter, she said, although she got to know the family and came to find him harmless. The families became acquainted through their children and have since become friends.
"He's just another guy," she said.
Brown doesn't dispute that offenders with predatory behaviors should be subject to close supervision. But not all sex offenders are predators, he said. "They're worried about the bad ones, so they're going to label everybody."
Peterson, the police chief, however, doesn't apologize for being more concerned with protecting the children in Little Chute than people there who have been convicted of sex crimes.
"If we're worried about sex offenders getting another chance, what about children who were sexually abused? They don't get second chances."
Restrictions not unique
Residency restrictions for sex offenders are not unique to Wisconsin. According to the California Research Bureau, 21 states and more than 400 local governments had adopted some type of restriction as of last year.
Winnebago County's Town of Algoma passed Wisconsin's first sex offender residency restriction in November.
Town Chairman Richard Spanbauer said the 2,000-foot restriction hasn't drawn much response, aside from communities seeking information on how the town crafted the rule. He said his board expected other communities would follow suit.
Spanbauer said the ordinance was passed out of concern that community notification for incoming offenders was occurring too infrequently. It's a safety tool intended to protect the community from offenders who might target children, he said.
"We have to be ready as a community to take care of what happens in our own backyard," Spanbauer said.
While states and communities crafted their policies out of concern for safety, they've also been challenged in court on the belief they encroach upon offenders' rights.
The most significant decisions to date occurred in the federal courts and dealt with Iowa's statewide residency restriction law.
A federal district court initially issued a restraining order prohibiting enforcement of the 2,000-foot buffer there, based on a challenge from three sex offenders. The 8th District Court of Appeals in 2005 found the state law constitutional.
Chris Ahmuty, director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin, said the appellate decision regarding Iowa's law wouldn't leave Wisconsin communities immune from court challenges. The issue has yet to be litigated here.
Little Chute Village President Chuck Fischer said he's not overly concerned about the possibility of his community's ordinance going before the court. "It's something we'll address if happens."
Brown said the government should end what he calls a witch-hunt and instead focus on the worst offenders rather than lumping all of them together.
He has paid his debt to society. "Now leave me be, and let me go on with my life."
View the article here
