The NY Senate site gives you the chance to voice displeasure of a bill if you live in NY, so my NY followers (or anyone with NY contacts), please sign up to the NY senate site and tell them to void Cuomo's Sex Offender residency/ proximity law amendment to A9505 (Assembly version) and S7505 (Senate Version).
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2017/A9505/amendment/C#no
and
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2017/s7505#no
As of this day, 3/15, both bills are in their respective finance committees. This proposal also impacts registered humans access to shelters by banning them from shelters where children may be present. All of us should contact the finance committees to oppose these amendments.
Here were the proposed changes to the budget from Cuomo's office related to this issue:
https://www.budget.ny.gov/pubs/archive/fy19/exec/30day/PPGGArtVIIAmendments.pdf
In the Senate Version of the bill, the residency/proximity proposal is under Part XX
The ban from emergency shelters is under Part II (that's the letter I, not roman numeral 2, as in the part between HH and JJ)
At this time, I do not see either of these provisions in the Assembly version,.
STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS
Provisions also include eliminating statutes of limitation for sex crimes so that must be opposed as well.
In the Assembly version, the statute of limitation provision is in Part P.
The Senate version does not seem to have the Statutes of limitations section at this rime.
Links to the committees currently responsible for the bills are listed below:
Senate Finance Committee:
https://www.nysenate.gov/committees/finance
Assembly Ways and Means Committee:
http://nyassembly.gov/comm/?id=41
Showing posts with label Residency Restrictions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Residency Restrictions. Show all posts
Thursday, March 15, 2018
Wednesday, December 31, 2014
Once Fallen's Moving Day: Has a lack of residency restrictions improved the moving process?
Life as a Registered Citizen is filled with a number of worries, but perhaps no concern we have is greater than finding a place to live. For the past eight years, I have lived on Eden Avenue, just two blocks from the University of Cincinnati. It was not the greatest apartment in the world, but it was home.
Five days after buying the property, Uptown Rentals gave every person in the 14-apartment complex the 30-day notice to vacate the premises. My neighbors were mostly long-time residents, including people who were elderly and disabled. Uptown Rentals didn't care. They offered no assistance to any of us as we were forced to scramble to find a new place to live. They lied to tenants about offering help (even telling one they would write us a $1000 per tenant check to help us with the move) and they even threatened residents they felt were not working hard enough to find a new place to live. [I wrote a very scathing review of Uptown Rentals if you want the full story: CLICK HERE TO READ IT.]
Even though my move was not the result of my status on the registry, the prospect of looking for a new place to live was frightening. I didn't have much in the way of resources-- I don't have any money in savings and owe thousands of dollars in credit card and student loan debt, plus I live off Social Security so money is very tight. Also, I remembered the difficult time I had the last time I was forced to move to a new apartment. In 2006, when I last faced a forced move, I spent several months and dozens of phone calls--131 calls to be exact-- before I found the residence at Eden Avenue. In the time between my move in 2006 and this more recent move, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled residency restriction laws do not apply to anyone convicted before July 1, 2003. My conviction date was before then, so I didn't have to worry about residency restriction laws.
No doubt some of my readers are wondering if I noticed a big difference in finding housing between my move in 2006 and my recent move. I called 100 less places and out of those 30, three were open to renting to me. I still had my share of negative responses but it was not as bad as it was in 2006. Of course, this was merely a personal observation. A number of other elements could have factored into the relative success in finding a new place-- it could have been dumb luck, my improved ability to apartment hunt based on my previous experience and knowledge of the subject, having a better method of approaching prospective renters, or the fact that people are more understanding of the stupidity of sex offender laws in the past. (I had a few conversations with sympathetic landlords; however, we are still considered a liability and thus many wouldn't rent to us out of fear of lawsuits.) Whatever the case may be, it took only two months and 31 phone calls, five months and a hundred calls less, to find a new home.
Still, I hated moving to a new part of town. I miss the conveniences of my old apartment. The reason I've been able to survive off a mere $740 a month is because my rent was $395 per month AND included electric, water and heat. Now, I pay $420 plus heat and electric. Now I have far less money to invest in the cause than before. That means in order to complete much-needed activist projects, I will be more dependent on fundraising than in the past.
Back on topic, I feel residency restrictions (or lack of restrictions) play a major role in finding housing. perhaps the best way to study this issue further is simulate the apartment hunting experience in places with and without residency restrictions. I have a hypothesis that places with residency restrictions are more likely to believe in the efficacy of the laws and, as a result, even renters in places not covered by restrictions are more reluctant to rent to Registered Citizens than in areas where residency laws don't exist. I believe the human factor has been minimized in previous residency law studies. How much "available housing" in non-restricted area is actually available to us?
It would be nice to see the end of residency restrictions, but it seems that Wisconsin is poised to become the next state to push for residency restrictions. An activist's work is never done, is it?
No doubt some of my readers are wondering if I noticed a big difference in finding housing between my move in 2006 and my recent move. I called 100 less places and out of those 30, three were open to renting to me. I still had my share of negative responses but it was not as bad as it was in 2006. Of course, this was merely a personal observation. A number of other elements could have factored into the relative success in finding a new place-- it could have been dumb luck, my improved ability to apartment hunt based on my previous experience and knowledge of the subject, having a better method of approaching prospective renters, or the fact that people are more understanding of the stupidity of sex offender laws in the past. (I had a few conversations with sympathetic landlords; however, we are still considered a liability and thus many wouldn't rent to us out of fear of lawsuits.) Whatever the case may be, it took only two months and 31 phone calls, five months and a hundred calls less, to find a new home.
Still, I hated moving to a new part of town. I miss the conveniences of my old apartment. The reason I've been able to survive off a mere $740 a month is because my rent was $395 per month AND included electric, water and heat. Now, I pay $420 plus heat and electric. Now I have far less money to invest in the cause than before. That means in order to complete much-needed activist projects, I will be more dependent on fundraising than in the past.
Back on topic, I feel residency restrictions (or lack of restrictions) play a major role in finding housing. perhaps the best way to study this issue further is simulate the apartment hunting experience in places with and without residency restrictions. I have a hypothesis that places with residency restrictions are more likely to believe in the efficacy of the laws and, as a result, even renters in places not covered by restrictions are more reluctant to rent to Registered Citizens than in areas where residency laws don't exist. I believe the human factor has been minimized in previous residency law studies. How much "available housing" in non-restricted area is actually available to us?
It would be nice to see the end of residency restrictions, but it seems that Wisconsin is poised to become the next state to push for residency restrictions. An activist's work is never done, is it?
Thursday, August 9, 2012
Why I "chose" to be an activist
What you are looking at is my very first post on a forum about sex offender topics. The day I found this website, I had been homeless for about three months, and decided to Google the topic of finding employment and housing for someone forced to register as a sex offender. I had stumbled across this particular website back on April 15, 2004 and I found this poll asking what we should do with homeless sex offenders. Some of the individuals there were in favor of indefinite incarceration, and one even suggested castrating homeless offenders simply for being homeless. It sickens me to see how heartless individuals could be.
My comment: "How CAN you punish someone who is trying to comply with registration laws but can't because he has no place to live? I am speaking from experience. I did all my time, got out and I'm homeless. Every day I go out looking for a job in vain, I'm not allowed to stay in shelters, and I'm supposed to be able to find a place to live without assistance. So am I supposed to go to jail because circumstances are beyond my control?"
The first responder to my question was a probation officer from FloriDUH using the screen name DP1. I felt her response was very condescending. She expected me to understand that the laws more important than the pain I was experiencing from being homeless and jobless. From that moment on, I began researching the impact of these laws. This website I had stumbled upon had a decent amount of information, and I learned over the Internet how difficult it was truly going to be to be given a second chance in an unforgiving society.
About two months later, I finally got a job and a place to stay. While neither job nor residence was ideal, it was better than nothing. Slowly, I moved away from the online community, kept to myself, and continued working. I was doing everything that society expects of a person who has served his time, and in return I expected to be left alone.
Society had other ideas. The county had reclassified me for no reason at all, then they determined I was living to close to a place where people can go get a GED, and soon they were going to force me to move. I had nowhere to turn for help. My girlfriend at the time got scared and broke up with me. Not long after, I lost my job. I had done everything right, yet society chose to ruin my life on a whim.
Eventually I was forced out of my home. Luckily, I had found a new residence, but no sooner than I had moved in, the city of Cincinnati decided they were going to increase their local residency restrictions, putting my new home in jeopardy. Again, I was faced with homelessness, so I went to City Hall and fought back. As a result, I was able to keep my apartment.
From that moment on, I dedicated my life to fighting Megan's law and other oppressive sex offender laws. And it all began with a simple question that received a heartless answer. I never really chose to be an activist; I was forced into it. But if we don't fight back, who will do it for us?
On April 1, 2013, I will celebrate my 10th year of my release from prison, however, I never proclaim it my 10th year of freedom, because I am not truly free. I was not allowed a second chance. Rather than wither and die, I choose to fight back. a fellow registrant I've known for years but is not an activist asked me why I put myself in harms way. I asked him why he didn't. He didn't want to make waves or be targeted. Like me, he wanted to be left alone. He was also homeless. Still, our local TV station targeted him in an exposé about homeless sex offenders, and claimed he was not homeless but was circumventing the law. He asked me when all this would end. My response was it would end when enough of us takes a stand against all the abuse and oppression we face on a daily basis.
I still live in the apartment I fought for. My friend is still homeless. When I feel like I'm fighting an uphill battle, I just look around at my apartment, and I remind myself how far I have come since that April day when I found a random poll on a long forgotten website.
__________________________________________________________
Feel free to read the other answers that people left on that very same question. If you have a heart, you'll be as angry as the hate as I was that day.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
The Mess in Miami: The consequences of ill-fated legislation
Below is an article I posted up on Oprah's community blog and Author's Den regarding residency restrictions and the situation under the Julia Tuttle Causeway. You can read more about the Julia Tuttle Causeway at http://www.oncefallen.com/juliatuttlecauseway.html
http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewarticle.asp?AuthorID=106280&id=50258
http://www.oprah.com/community/blogs/silenthill/2009/08/21/the-mess-in-miami-the-consequences-of-illfated-legislation
Oprah films at the homeless sex offender camp at Julia Tuttle Causeway in Miami, which has become a national symbol of the excesses of ill-fated sex offender residency restrictions.
In my five years as an advocate for the Former *ex Offender, I have heard the same suggestions over the years as to what to do with released *ex offenders -- Kill them, castrate them, banish them, and so on. At the least, we support an increasing number of laws against them, from public registries to civil commitment to GPS to residency restrictions. After over a dozen years of retributive measures, we are starting to see the negative consequences of laws written in response to social panics rather than proven fact. Unless Oprah changes her mind, there will be a report on the registrants forced to live under the Julia Tuttle Causeway (JTC) in Miami in a future episode of the Oprah show, as a film crew was recently filming at the JTC. For three years, those convicted of *ex offenses are required to live under the JTC because more than 99% of south Florida is off limits thanks to a 2500 foot residency restriction law. This sad scenario has become a national (even global) embarrassment, a living testament to the extremes we have taken in the name of public safety. Most likely you will see powerful Florida lobbyist Ron Book, the very man who championed the restrictions, point fingers at the state for the dilemma. Book is also head of the Homeless Trust in Miami, yet for years denied these individuals even the most basic of needs. In fact, every politico involved in this debacle is pointing fingers all around.
Many of you won't care, flooding Oprah with the same "they are getting what they deserve" comments that usually fill forums and message boards around the country. However, I think maybe we should care. I believe it is time we really consider what is working and what is not working in preventing *ex crimes in the first place. For decades, this country has been inundated with myths about the very nature of *ex crimes and the people who commit these crimes. We've passed legislation in the names the victims of high profile tragedies, heralding each law as a panacea until the net tragic case makes headlines. The end result is laws which have made it nearly impossible for any convicted *ex offender to earn an opportunity to reintegrate and become a productive member of society after his or her timeis served.
Reintegration and a stable post-release existence is integral for many reasons. The most important reason is stable housing, employment, treatment, and social networking are bulwarks of reducing recidivism amongst *ex offenders (or any ex-offender for that matter). Contrary to what we've been taught, *ex offenders have the lowest rate of recidivism of any crime, and that number can be reduced even further by proper treatment of those who have *exually offended. Furthermore, by focusing on those on a public list, we tend to forget that the vast majority of *ex crimes are committed by someone the victim knows, like a close friend or family member, and that most are not on the public registry. And in our zeal to eradicate molestation and rape, we have made the laws so sensitive we have arrested children as young as age 10 and placed on sex offender registries. The Dallas Morning News recently reported that over 4000 individuals on the registry were placed on the registry when they were minors. And the Adam Walsh Act, the very same bill Oprah implored her viewers to flood Congress to support and fund, forces states to register minors as young as age 14 or face a 10% cut to federal Law Enforcement grants. Just think, your teenage son could be registered for life for consensual relations with his teenage lover! (For an example simply google "Ricky's Life")
The one thing noticeably absent from discussions about *ex crimes is prevention. We have been led to believe post release *ex crime laws are "prevention," but they are not. True prevention is a multifaceted approach which requires educating the public truthfully on *exual matters. Our culture treats S-E-X as a dirty word to the point we can't even type it in most forums, and when it comes to our own youth, we let their peers, the internet and mass media teach our youth about the "s" word. But even in those rare discussions of sexuality are discussed, no one even considers discussing the other sex-related issues, like how to deal with improper sexual feelings and behaviors. In fact, the very laws we've enacted to prevent *ex crimes are the laws which prevent those struggling with sexual problems to seek help until it is too late.
If society took a treatment-oriented approach to this issue, we'd see far better results than the vengeance-oriented approach we have promoted for over a decade. It is not about sympathizing with the convicted *ex offender or condoning what they have done (or the favorite claim "supporting pedophilia"). However, they have served a sentence for their time and was released into society, their debts to the state paid. I don't expect anyone to open up their homes to a registrant; however, they should be given an opportunity once released to reintegrate and become productive members of society.Even Patty Wetterling, the woman who championed the first national sex offender registry through Congress in 1994, has spoken out against tough feel-good measures. She implores us to get smart rather than tough on sex crimes.
Derek Logue, author of the book "Once Fallen," famously stated in a fight over residency laws, "Where are we supposed to live?" In Miami, the answer is the Julia Tuttle Causeway. Eighty people forced under a bridge in the name of noble but misguided crusade. Consider how Iowa recently repealed residency laws after a significant increase in homelessness and absconding registrants, while *ex crime rates remain the same. Kansas passed a moratorium against residency restrictions because of Iowa's problems. A series of studies from Colorado and Minnesota also found residency laws do not work; in fact, the studies concluded these laws may possibly increase recidivism. Even Florida Senator Dave Aronberg stated residency laws are ineffective and counterproductive (before suggesting the state increase residency restrictions). And now, even Ron Book, the one who put many of the registants under the JTC, admits the laws have backfired. However, like Logue, no one has received a straight answer to the question.
So where are they supposed to live? Ron Book's "solution" was an abandoned county jail or an empty parking lot 35 miles away, far away from the cameras of the worldwide media. It took worldwide attention and an ACLU just to begin a move to find housing for 80 people. However, when those eighty are out of the spotlight, what will happen to them? And where will those ready to be released from prison also go? While peoplelove to make the same comments, the fact is many people will be released from prison for *ex crimes. Ask yourself which is more important -- Revenge or Results? Reason or Wrath? If the goal was truly about protecting children instead of exacting revenge, then we would work towards a path of healing, not just for the victims but for those who have offended.
http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewarticle.asp?AuthorID=106280&id=50258
http://www.oprah.com/community/blogs/silenthill/2009/08/21/the-mess-in-miami-the-consequences-of-illfated-legislation
Oprah films at the homeless sex offender camp at Julia Tuttle Causeway in Miami, which has become a national symbol of the excesses of ill-fated sex offender residency restrictions.
The Mess in Miami: The consequences of ill-fated legislation
Posted on Aug 21, 2009 1:52 AM on my personal blog on the Oprah Winfrey site.In my five years as an advocate for the Former *ex Offender, I have heard the same suggestions over the years as to what to do with released *ex offenders -- Kill them, castrate them, banish them, and so on. At the least, we support an increasing number of laws against them, from public registries to civil commitment to GPS to residency restrictions. After over a dozen years of retributive measures, we are starting to see the negative consequences of laws written in response to social panics rather than proven fact.
Many of you won't care, flooding Oprah with the same "they are getting what they deserve" comments that usually fill forums and message boards around the country. However, I think maybe we should care. I believe it is time we really consider what is working and what is not working in preventing *ex crimes in the first place. For decades, this country has been inundated with myths about the very nature of *ex crimes and the people who commit these crimes. We've passed legislation in the names the victims of high profile tragedies, heralding each law as a panacea until the net tragic case makes headlines. The end result is laws which have made it nearly impossible for any convicted *ex offender to earn an opportunity to reintegrate and become a productive member of society after his or her timeis served.
Reintegration and a stable post-release existence is integral for many reasons. The most important reason is stable housing, employment, treatment, and social networking are bulwarks of reducing recidivism amongst *ex offenders (or any ex-offender for that matter). Contrary to what we've been taught, *ex offenders have the lowest rate of recidivism of any crime, and that number can be reduced even further by proper treatment of those who have *exually offended. Furthermore, by focusing on those on a public list, we tend to forget that the vast majority of *ex crimes are committed by someone the victim knows, like a close friend or family member, and that most are not on the public registry. And in our zeal to eradicate molestation and rape, we have made the laws so sensitive we have arrested children as young as age 10 and placed on sex offender registries. The Dallas Morning News recently reported that over 4000 individuals on the registry were placed on the registry when they were minors. And the Adam Walsh Act, the very same bill Oprah implored her viewers to flood Congress to support and fund, forces states to register minors as young as age 14 or face a 10% cut to federal Law Enforcement grants. Just think, your teenage son could be registered for life for consensual relations with his teenage lover! (For an example simply google "Ricky's Life")
The one thing noticeably absent from discussions about *ex crimes is prevention. We have been led to believe post release *ex crime laws are "prevention," but they are not. True prevention is a multifaceted approach which requires educating the public truthfully on *exual matters. Our culture treats S-E-X as a dirty word to the point we can't even type it in most forums, and when it comes to our own youth, we let their peers, the internet and mass media teach our youth about the "s" word. But even in those rare discussions of sexuality are discussed, no one even considers discussing the other sex-related issues, like how to deal with improper sexual feelings and behaviors. In fact, the very laws we've enacted to prevent *ex crimes are the laws which prevent those struggling with sexual problems to seek help until it is too late.
If society took a treatment-oriented approach to this issue, we'd see far better results than the vengeance-oriented approach we have promoted for over a decade. It is not about sympathizing with the convicted *ex offender or condoning what they have done (or the favorite claim "supporting pedophilia"). However, they have served a sentence for their time and was released into society, their debts to the state paid. I don't expect anyone to open up their homes to a registrant; however, they should be given an opportunity once released to reintegrate and become productive members of society.Even Patty Wetterling, the woman who championed the first national sex offender registry through Congress in 1994, has spoken out against tough feel-good measures. She implores us to get smart rather than tough on sex crimes.
Derek Logue, author of the book "Once Fallen," famously stated in a fight over residency laws, "Where are we supposed to live?" In Miami, the answer is the Julia Tuttle Causeway. Eighty people forced under a bridge in the name of noble but misguided crusade. Consider how Iowa recently repealed residency laws after a significant increase in homelessness and absconding registrants, while *ex crime rates remain the same. Kansas passed a moratorium against residency restrictions because of Iowa's problems. A series of studies from Colorado and Minnesota also found residency laws do not work; in fact, the studies concluded these laws may possibly increase recidivism. Even Florida Senator Dave Aronberg stated residency laws are ineffective and counterproductive (before suggesting the state increase residency restrictions). And now, even Ron Book, the one who put many of the registants under the JTC, admits the laws have backfired. However, like Logue, no one has received a straight answer to the question.
So where are they supposed to live? Ron Book's "solution" was an abandoned county jail or an empty parking lot 35 miles away, far away from the cameras of the worldwide media. It took worldwide attention and an ACLU just to begin a move to find housing for 80 people. However, when those eighty are out of the spotlight, what will happen to them? And where will those ready to be released from prison also go? While peoplelove to make the same comments, the fact is many people will be released from prison for *ex crimes. Ask yourself which is more important -- Revenge or Results? Reason or Wrath? If the goal was truly about protecting children instead of exacting revenge, then we would work towards a path of healing, not just for the victims but for those who have offended.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)