.

Lake Forest Repeals Sex Offender Ban

With new City Council members dissenting, officials give final approval to reversing their year-old ban on registered sex offenders in Lake Forest parks.

Worried that a year-old ban on registered sex offenders in local parks wouldn't hold up in court, Lake Forest's City Council voted Tuesday to repeal the law.

In a 3-2 decision, the council officially undid the measure, which had been on the books since last December and prohibited registered sex offenders from entering city parks.

The law was stricter than the one it was modeled after, a county measure penned by District Attorney Tony Rackauckas and County Supervisor Shawn Nelson.

The move put the council in the unusual position of saying it was either wrong to enact the ban in the first place or unwilling to defend it. Mayor Kathryn McCullough and Councilmen Scott Voigts and Peter Herzog voted to repeal the law.

The council's two newly elected members, Dwight Robinson and Adam Nick, voted to keep it.

At the council meeting the ban, citing the financial hit the city would take defending itself against lawsuits.

About half the cities in Orange County have enacted similar laws at the request of Rackauckas. However, the county's law suffered a setback when an appeals court overturned the conviction of Hugo Godinez for entering Mile Square Park in Fountain Valley.

In that case, an Orange County appellate panel said the county ban was superseded by a less restrictive state law.

Cty Attorney Scott C. Smith said keeping Lake Forest's law would cost at least $200,000 in legal fees to defend, and that's if the city won in court. Losing could bring penalties, including paying the legal costs of the sex offenders who challenged the ban.

BarT December 19, 2012 at 03:45 PM
It is too much like what the German's did in the thirties.
vahall December 19, 2012 at 03:57 PM
I think the decision is well considered. The headline of this article - "City Backs Döwn"' ... is not so well considered. The City passed a law last year which does not pass Constitutional muster. A bad law. Perhaps a well intentioned law, but a bad law nonetheless. "Backing down"' is a misnomer. The City chose to admit and correct its errors and the City is to be applauded for being responsible, fiscally prudent and constitutionally correct. Not everything which comes out of the D.A.'s mouth is gold, or even accurate.
Jim Gardner December 19, 2012 at 05:41 PM
"the City is to be applauded for being responsible, fiscally prudent and constitutionally correct..." Hmmm. How many hundreds of thousands of dollars will this mis-step cost us? Last night the Mayor revealed that the "day laborer" fiasco 2 years ago (enacting an ordinance that was never applied because it was unconstitutional) cost the City $400,000. She also announced that the recent Marijuana dispensary fights cost us $2,000,000. And these figures do not reflect the expenditures in terms of city staff time and resources. It seems obvious that the City is making poor decisions and these decisions are costing us a lot of money. Better decision making in the first place would be more reflective of being "responsible, fiscally prudent and constitutionally correct."
JustUs December 19, 2012 at 05:47 PM
Hey, did you watch DA crony Susan Schroeder step up to the microphone at last night's Council meeting and publicly disclose the previous sex offenses by 2 public speakers that spoke before her? How's that for a GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL encouraging free speech and an engaged citizenry??? I wish I would have been there and had an opportunity to speak after Schroeder. I would have mentioned her husband's DUI conviction and asked the Council to send a request to Sacramento to enact a Lake Forest roadway ban on all convicted DUI offenders to enhance the safety of our children. After all, if we could only save ONE CHILD's LIFE by banning DUI offenders from our roadways....it would all be worth it, right??? I wonder what the law and order hand-wringers would say about that??? lol.
JustUs December 19, 2012 at 06:57 PM
Just curious. Do city council members take a SWORN oath to defend the US Constitution or are they too low-level for that sort of thing? Or do they just swear to protect the city charter? If there was an ordinance on the council's table to approve warrantless searches of Lake Forest homes at the discretion of the Sheriff's department with no need for judicial review would Robinson and Nick vote for it's passage? I mean heck, if we could uncover dangerous material that could potentially save one human life....wouldn't it be all worth it? You know, as much as I hate child sex offenders I love my US Constitution more. My love of the US Constitution outweighs my hate for dirty pedophiles. Because I know that once we head down that slippery slope we are no better than North Korea. I don't want the future American generations to live like that. Besides, this city park ban probably included some doo-doo bird who exposed his backside as a joke in public. It's just so stupid on it's face. It makes no sense whatsoever. Have the leaders in our society gone that far off the rails for God sakes? My final question is this. Did the DA's office endorse either Robinson or Nick for their current Council positions? Does anyone know?
Martin Henderson (Editor) December 19, 2012 at 09:35 PM
The original headline that included "City Backs Down" has been changed. Thanks!
Jim Gardner December 19, 2012 at 09:53 PM
Hi JustUs, The City Council members take an oath to defend the U.S. and the CA Constitutions. As far as I know from their publicity, the DA did not endorse either Nick or Robinson. OC Supervisor Bates endorsed Anderson and Zechmeister, as she did Herzog in 2010.
JustUs December 19, 2012 at 10:23 PM
In a small article by Greg Woodward on 10/2/2012 at the "OC Political" blog it states that the Orange County DA did endorse Dwight Robinson. I tried to link it but the Patch rejected it for some reason. And thinking back, I recall seeing the endorsement on Robinson's personal campaign page on his endorsement list prior to the election myself. In fact, I mentioned it to several people. But when I just checked for the endorsement on his campaign page it's gone. So apparently it's been removed. Interesting. But I can't seem to find any known political connection between Mr. Nick and the DA's office. But thank you for your response.
JustUs December 19, 2012 at 11:51 PM
Btw, I want to thank Mayor McCullough, Herzog and Voights for having the good sense to trash this piece of City legal trash. Thank you for realizing the errors of your ways, admitting it publicly and doing whatever you could to try and save the City the money it would take to enter into such a futile war where all the odds are stacked against the City. You cannot turn back the hands of time and correct other misjudgments of the past. All you can do is take responsibility and apologize to your citizens for the mistakes that you've made. And after listening to Mayor McCullough last night - it seems that you've done that. All we ask is that you LEARN from your mistakes going forward and don't repeat the same errors over and over again. And God bless Mayor McCullough. I have never really been a big fan - but you impressed the heck out of me last night with your leadership and honesty. You go girl!
vahall December 20, 2012 at 01:20 AM
The first thing that needs to be said about laws like this is that they are a sham. There is no evidence. linking park restrictions to a reduction in sex crimes, and no way that park restrictions will do anything about the bulk of the sex-offender problem, which is the abuse of children by relatives and other people they know. The laws are simplistic, emotion-based formulas that cloak politicians in an aura of decisiveness. while doing nothing to tackle a ferociously difficult problem. The second thing is that they are a dangerous waste of law-enforcement time and resources. Police departments are already obliged under a welter of federal and state laws to register and monitor sex. offenders. Prosecutors and sheriffs around the country have complained that adding park enforcement to their large and growing offender-management portfolios only hampers their ability to fight crime. The final and most important point is that park bans send offenders underground. You may imagine these men fearsome and creepy, but if communities systematically banish them, denying them the chance to find housing and to lead stable lives under close supervision, they end up doing the logical thing. They congregate in unincorporated poor areas. Or they disappear. The laws your DA and his sidekick are trumpeting risk turning sex offenders into unstable, rootless individuals, harder to track and arguably more dangerous.
Robert Curtis March 24, 2013 at 08:47 PM
Odd, but with 80% of the population being for the ban I see little argument online in favor via comments. Perhaps the arguments are so weak that many opt out. Emotions are hard to defend with reason especially when they are wrong. TRUTH

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something