<br />I
<br />
<br />But, says Brown-McBride, the registry stirs
<br />up all sortS of NIMBY issues, with opponents
<br />of this unwanted population mounting fierce,
<br />highly emotional arguments. ''As a consequence
<br />of these laws, no one wants to live by them,"
<br />she says. "That's where it becomes a planning
<br />problem. From the outset, you've got compet-
<br />ing goals" -tracking where offenders live in
<br />the community, but also letting community
<br />members know where they are.
<br />Child safety zones and residency restrictions
<br />emerged in 2000, Brown-McBride says. "They
<br />followed the model of nuisance codes, places with
<br />drug-free and prostitute-free zones. Some states
<br />did it very narrowly-around schools and day
<br />care centers. Others made it almost impossible
<br />to live anywhere."
<br />Today's residency laws assume that reducing
<br />the likelihood of contact with children will
<br />reduce the chance of abuse. These "distance
<br />marker" laws typically prohibit known sex of-
<br />fenders from living-and sometimes working or
<br />loitering-within acenain distance of schools,
<br />day care centers, and "places where children
<br />
<br />congregate." They may also specifically include
<br />parks, certain public areas, churches, and school
<br />bus Stops. The least testrictive distance matker
<br />ordinances mandate a 500-foot buffer, but dis-
<br />tances of 1 ,000 and 2,500 feet are common.
<br />Several of the laws have withstood constitu-
<br />tional challenges. The most notable is in Iowa,
<br />where registered sex offenders are prohibited
<br />from living within 2,000 feet of a school, day
<br />care provider, or park. In 2005, the Eighth
<br />Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the state law
<br />as constitutional in Doe v. Miller, after a suit was
<br />brought by the ACLD. The coun concluded
<br />that the law did not amount to "punishment"
<br />and declared that the Constitution does not
<br />guarantee a "right to live where you choose."
<br />Critics have charged that residency laws
<br />amount to banishment. Courts have disagreed.
<br />Proponents of the laws argue that "if you draw
<br />circles around schools, there still may be pock-
<br />ets where sex offenders can live," says Stephen
<br />JohnsonGrove, an attorney with the Ohio Justice
<br />and Policy Center. He notes that the laws are
<br />made possible by technology used by planners
<br />
<br />American Planning Associa[ion 23
<br />
<br />every day. "These laws exist only because GIS
<br />exists. There's no way they'd send a surveyor to
<br />evaluate every sex offender's living situation.
<br />But with GIS, it's easy to do."
<br />JohnsonGrove is working with sex offenders
<br />challenging Ohio's residency law, which went
<br />into effect in 2005. That state, as well as Ken-
<br />tucky, Georgia, and Oklahoma, has no provision
<br />for grandfathering in sex offenders who lived
<br />within a buffer zone when the law was passed.
<br />One client is 75 and has lived in his house for 35
<br />years. He says that offenders in those situations
<br />"come to us because rheyare being thrown our.
<br />We're not challengingwherher rhey committed
<br />an offense or not, but [this] violates the ex post
<br />facto clause-you can'r impose punishment
<br />after the fact."
<br />
<br />Broad brush
<br />Some states and cities have opted not to pass
<br />residency laws. Covington, Kentucky, a Cincin-
<br />nati suburb, defeated such an ordinance in spring
<br />2005. The proposed law would have created a
<br />2,000-foot buffer (Kentucky's law is 1,000 feet).
<br />
<br />Fair housing rules
<br />The 1988 passage of the Fair Housing Amend-
<br />mems Act forced courts and local governments
<br />to treat the disabled differently. The law added
<br />the disabled to its existing list of protected
<br />classes. Under the act, the broad definition
<br />of "handicap" extends to alcohol or drug ad-
<br />diction. However, the law excludes residents
<br />"whose tenancy would constitute a direct threat
<br />to the health and safety of other individuals."
<br />The Kansas supreme court ruled lasr April that
<br />Leavenworth County, near Kansas City, could
<br />prohibit the operation ofa group home for high-
<br />risk sex offenders who are elderly and disabled
<br />(News, August/September 2006).
<br />The FHAA also required that cities whose
<br />zoning law did notlimit the number of unrelated
<br />people that could live in a single-family residence
<br />
<br />
<br />The Gosser Care
<br />Home, a six-bed
<br />group home for
<br />the mentally
<br />ill, is located
<br />on a cul-de-sac
<br />in a residential
<br />neighborhood
<br />of Milpitas,
<br />California.
<br />
<br />allow group homes as-of-right. It required
<br />those with more restrictive definitions of fam-
<br />ily to make "reasonable accommodations" for
<br />homes housing the disabled. Seven years larer,
<br />in Edmonds v. OxfordHouse, the Supreme Court
<br />upheld the FHAA and established that local laws
<br />that define families in a way that excludes group
<br />homes are nor exempt from the law.
<br />Experts like Lauber say the government had
<br />good reason to force cities to approach commu-
<br />nity residences more like families and less like
<br />institutions. He cites over 100 studies that show
<br />that community residences have little impact
<br />on property values, as long as group homes are
<br />not clustered on one block. Jaffe points out that
<br />traffic and congestion, often a top concern of
<br />low-density neighborhoods, are also likely to
<br />have a minimal impact because few residents
<br />own vehicles.
<br />Many cities have stopped regulating group
<br />homes alrogether. "The pendulum swung way
<br />far the other way," says Eric King, the com-
<br />munity residential siting coordinator for the
<br />Portland, Oregon, Office of Neighborhood
<br />Involvement. King says Portland amended its
<br />code in the early 1990s to allow group homes
<br />in any residential district.
<br />"Things got sited anywhere, without any
<br />process," King says. As a result, new problems
<br />began to occur: The lack of regulations allowed
<br />providers to cluster homes in certain neighbor-
<br />hoods. Neighbors armed with negative stereo-
<br />
<br />types stormed city hall looking for recourse.
<br />Something similar was happening in Mil-
<br />waukee. Until this year, the city mandated that
<br />group homes must be at least 2,500 feet apart. As
<br />more and more community residences came into
<br />the city, that requirement was largely ignored.
<br />Alderman Joe Davis led an effort to map com-
<br />munity residences and found a disproportionate
<br />number of the facilities in his northwestern
<br />district. "Literally, one would be approved on
<br />one block and then another would apply for the
<br />same block," creating concerns among families
<br />about neighborhood instability, Davis says.
<br />Group home advocates are trying to abolish both
<br />the city law and a similar state statute.
<br />Portland's solution was the creation of the
<br />Community Residence Siting program, which
<br />applies couRict dispute tesolution tactics to group
<br />home sitings that stir discontent among neigh-
<br />bors. The program identifies community leaders
<br />and brings them together with care providers to
<br />map out a public involvement process, with the
<br />city office as a mediator. King says the mediation
<br />has paid off. "We don't have people screaming
<br />at elected officials anymore," he says.
<br />Jaffe, meanwhile, isn't afraid to say that the best
<br />place for many group homes, especially larger
<br />ones, may be in multifamily zones, where ameni-
<br />ties like shopping and transportation are more
<br />likely to be within easy walking distance.
<br />Tim Sullivan
<br />Sullivan is a freelance writer in Oakland, California.
<br />
|