11-3-16 National:
If you wind up in prison in the U.S., your punishment doesn’t necessarily end the day you serve out your sentence and go home. Former inmates reentering society often get ensnared in a web of laws that dictate their post-prison lives, from where they can live, to what they can do for a living, to whether they can ever vote.
In 2014, when the American Bar Association conducted a national survey of “collateral consequences” — legal restrictions imposed on people with criminal records — they found 44,500 different state and federal statutes. ..Continued.. by The Marshall Project
Showing posts with label ( .News-Housing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ( .News-Housing. Show all posts
November 3, 2016
How Can a Criminal Record Haunt You for the Rest of Your Life?
September 18, 2015
Should People With Criminal Histories Be Banned From Public Housing?
But not for those with sex convictions!9-18-15 National:
HUD Secretary Juliàn Castro says the agency is reconsidering rules that make it difficult for ex-offenders to access public housing.
We often talk about the “three-strikes rules” that came about in the 1990s—“tough on crime” federal laws that remanded people convicted of three felony convictions to life in prison.
Only one strike is needed, in many circumstances, however, to get banned from public housing. The 1998 Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act, signed into law by President Bill Clinton, led to new rules from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development on who could and couldn’t receive federal housing assistance. They gave local public housing authorities broad authority in using criminal histories to refuse people admission to public housing. Any sex offender is automatically ineligible; at one point, this included sex workers in Louisiana.
In San Francisco, an applicant who’s been convicted of violent crimes against people or property will not be considered by the local housing authority. Drug-related crimes can get you banned from receiving vouchers also. In many cities, you can get screened out or evicted just for having a family member with a drug conviction, and then prohibited from re-admission for three years.
Courts, of course, are far too generous in handing out convictions to African Americans in comparison to other races, especially for drug crimes. And hence, black people are the least sheltered from exclusionary housing policies.
A new report from the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights explains the costs of discrimination against the formerly incarcerated: 79 percent of formerly incarcerated people surveyed in the report said they were denied housing or determined ineligible for it; 18 percent of families surveyed had faced eviction, were denied housing, or became disqualified for public housing when an incarcerated family member returned. ..Continued.. by Brentin Mock
November 28, 2014
Exclusive: State doubles evictions from public housing this fall
HONOLULU (HawaiiNewsNow) - A federal and state crackdown has prompted increased evictions from public housing projects across the state, with more on the way.
The Inspector General's office from the U.S. Housing Department has been investigating tenants at federal housing projects on Oahu for the past several months, sources said. Federal agents have been interviewing tenants and checking their backgrounds, tenants said. That federal probe along with the state's own investigations have been getting results.
"We believe that each property has a certain amount of fraud happening and it's truly difficult for us to know until we actually do an investigation," said Hawaii Public Housing Authority Executive Director Hakim Ouansafi.
Ouansafi won't confirm or deny the federal probe. He said his own state investigators are cracking down on whether tenants are lying about their household income to qualify for public housing or covering up felony or sex offender criminal backgrounds that would get them thrown out. Others try to hide assets such as bank and investments accounts, Ouansafi said.
Sources said the feds are using FBI and IRS agents who could bring federal criminal charges against fraudulent tenants at 5,500 federal housing units across the state.
"Not only people might lose their housing, but they maybe end up in jail. It's a matter that we take very seriously," Ouansafi said.
Ouansafi said dozens of tenants have been evicted statewide in the last several months, roughly twice as many as last fall. Another six or evictions are still ongoing, he said.
"We were able to evict a tremendous amount of people who were taking advantage of the taxpayers," Ouansafi said.
He said the highest percentage of evictions is on Kauai, where tenants are getting kicked out for failing to pay their rent or breaking rules such as drinking in public.
"Kauai seems to stand up as probably one of the worst, followed by Oahu, then by Maui and then the Big Island," Ouansafi added.
Another federal program called Section 8 pays rent subsidies to private landlords of low-income people. Ouansafi said so far three families have lost their vouchers on Oahu because they were committing fraud, including one accused of receiving fraudulent rent subsidies for six years.
The crackdown comes at a time when the Housing Authority has reached its highest occupancy level ever and there is still a waiting list. So evictions are making room for legitimately needy families to find a new home. ..Source.. by Keoki Kerr
February 6, 2014
9 Investigates central Florida sex offender population
ORLANDO, Fla. — Since 2005 the sex offender population in Florida has increased 28 percent, making it one of the fastest-growing populations in the state.
While many of the sex offenders convicted in Florida continue to live in the state, a growing portion of the sex offender population is from out of state, moving to Florida after serving time in other states.
“I do not believe that it is healthy for a community to have a group of them in one location,” said Former East Lake Chamber of Commerce President Catherine Hanson.
In 2011, Hanson led an effort to prevent a sex offender community development in Lake County. The development, which was eventually abandoned, would have been built in the Sorrento area.
“We don’t need them to come as a group here,” said Hanson.
Since 2009, Lake County’s sex offender population has grown from 401 to 456, a 13.7 percent increase. Part of Lake’s increase is due to sex offenders moving in and in Lady Lake, there are 22 registered sex offenders, seven being from out of state.
“Florida’s laws are pretty strict about how fast they have to register when they come in from out of state,” said Sgt. Jim Vachon of the Lake County Sheriff’s Office.
In the last decade, the Lake County Sheriff’s Office has increased its staffing to deal with sex offenders, dedicating more deputies to the unit.
“As the sex offender population has increased we have also had to increase our resources to tracking and monitoring them,” said Vachon.
Lake County’s sex offender population is actually growing at a slower rate than other central Florida counties. Orange, Volusia, and Brevard all reported double-digit increases in sex offenders in the last five years with Orange County leading the group with an increase of 24.2 percent since 2009.
Statewide, the sex offender population increased from 18,607 in 2005 to 23,813 in 2012.
Using the state database of sex offenders, Eyewitness News spoke to several out of state sex offenders at their homes to find out why they relocated to Florida.
The most common answer among sex offenders when asked why they moved to the state was “employment”, with offenders saying they came to the area to find work. Other answers ranged from affordable housing to retirement and family issues.
Under state law sex offenders are not allowed to reside within 1,000 feet of a school, playground or day care center.
Some communities have passed their own guidelines for sex offenders, increasing the distance requirements from 1,000 feet to 2,000 or 2,500 feet.
The distance requirements often mean that offenders can only live in specific neighborhoods, creating what are known as sex offender clusters.
In one such cluster in Orange County off Kirkman Road, there are 74 registered sex offenders, and 10 are from out of state. ..Source..
October 7, 2013
Counties face challenge of housing sex offenders
Legal issues, local objections make situation even tougher
They're destitute, without jobs or much hope of securing one. They're homeless and without much hope of finding one.
They're the people no one wants to employ or live near: level 2 and level 3 sex offenders — men and women who are legally required to report their presence to local authorities for the rest of their lives.
When they're released from prison, or move from another area, it falls to county Social Services departments to place them. Frequently, they wind up in small, family-run motels and boarding houses. And they have to report that address to authorities or face penalties, including arrest.
In the past year alone, 14 sex offenders — including 10 in Liberty in July — have been picked up for failing to register where they live, as required.
Their sometimes-clustered presence in some of the region's motels and boarding homes has prompted fear, anger and lawsuits in communities across the region, the state and the country.
And nowhere in the mid-Hudson has the outcry of late been louder than in the Town or Wawarsing in Ulster County.
Emotional, legal issues tangle
Wawarsing comprises five hamlets and the Village of Ellenville. According to the latest figures available from the state's Public Registry of Sex Offenders, there are currently 29 level 2 and level 3 sex offenders living in those communities. Only the City of Kingston, with 37, has more registered sex offenders in Ulster County.
The tiny and very rural hamlet of Kerhonkson is home to 17 sex offenders, according to the registry. Six of those offenders now reside at the Colonial Motel on Route 209.
To town Supervisor Scott Carlsen, those numbers strongly suggest that something's out of whack with the way indigent sex offenders are housed in the county.
Carlsen is recently retired from a career as an administrator in the state's correctional system, including years as a counselor in several sexual offender programs.
Housing sexual offenders in rural communities like Kerhonkson, he said, isn't good for offenders nor the community.
"They (sexual offenders) don't have cars. In order to get the services they need, they have to bike or hitchhike. Even from a therapeutic model, it makes no sense to me."
And, he says, the situation only gets worse when sex offenders are allowed to congregate.
"I'm unaware of any study of any treatment that it's a good thing to stick a dozen of these guys together in a single facility."
But there is little legal recourse available. Some, like the Town of Wallkill, or Middletown or Village of Ellenville, have passed laws that limit sex offenders from living near schools, playgrounds and parks.
Following the village's lead, the Wawarsing Town Board implemented a statute a couple of years ago that limits to 30 the number of days a person may reside at a town motel. Three of the town's motels, Carlsen said, have abided by the law. But not, he said, the Colonial.
After the motel's compliance became a campaign issue in 2011, with Republican candidates claiming that 12 sex offenders were residing at the Colonial, owner Shahida Rizvi filed suit in federal court contending the statute prevents her from operating her business.
In a 31-page brief, Rizvi's lawyer Mark Stern argued that the town "fully intends to prevent (Rizvi) from operating her business through the mechanism of fines, criminal charges and criminal penalties."
Carlsen's anger only worsened when a convicted criminal — who was not a registered sex offender — was placed by county Social Services at the Colonial and arrested and charged with raping a woman last August.
Carlsen called the incident "nothing short of an outrage and criminal" on the part of Ulster County Social Services.
He accused the departments of violating the town's statute.
Michael Iapoce, director of the county's Social Services Department, sees the situation very differently.
Homelessness a key problem
Every county in the state must find housing for any individual, regardless of their criminal history, if they say they are homeless.
As far as Iapoce is concerned, that's the bottom line when his Social Services Department deals with homeless people.
And while his department has taken a lot of heat for housing indigent sex offenders, he said there's a public "misperception" that Social Services has more authority and responsibility than it actually does.
Sex offenders are emerging from a highly structured prison environment, he said; the services they require are determined by the county's Probation Department and state Department of Corrections.
Marijane Knudsen, the department's director of economic support, said that prisoners being released into communities — especially sex offenders — need better discharge plans to guide their re-introduction to society.
She also said there are larger issues, including the need for better housing for anyone who needs it.
"No one deserves to live in a hotel. Everyone should have access to permanent, safe housing," she said.
That need, said Nancy Schmidt, can be a pivotal aspect of what she called "an age-old problem."
Lack of jobs compounds issue
Schmidt is deputy director of the county's probation department. The lack of stable housing and job opportunities for sex offenders, she said, are the two biggest factors affecting the successful integration of an indigent offender into society.
Housing availabilities are sometimes prohibited by the very laws that are aimed at protecting children from predators, such as laws that restrict sex offenders from living near schools, playgrounds and parks.
In a city like Kingston, Schmidt said, that reduces the potential housing choices considerably. Rural, isolated locations like Kerhonkson are at least less likely to pose a threat to children living nearby.
And yes, she said, while Social Services is responsible for housing homeless sex offenders, there are times when the department will allow housing sex offenders in a facility with other offenders.
Sometimes, it's a better choice than having an offender move from "couch to couch" or live in a car or a tent, where supervision is more difficult and the threat of a recurrence could be increased.
"Without employment or stable housing, there's a higher risk of a return," she said.
And with a sigh, she summarized the situation in two words:
"It's tough." ..Source.. by RecordOnline.com
July 24, 2013
ALERT UPDATE: Sen Vitter requests that -his amendment- attacking sex offenders NOT be read into the record
7-24-2013 Washington DC:
CHECKED: 8-5-2013 Thomas still not updated w/amendments mentioned below.Yesterday we reported that Sen. Vitter (his website) presented an amendment affecting certain sex offenders in a new bill S-1243. At that time we did not have the details of the amendment, but in the Congressional record we found where he presented the amendment (see below).
Pay particular attention to the fact, that, he asks the clerk to "dispense with reading the amendment" i.e., to not read it into the record. He doesn't want the public to know what it says!
Thankfully the clerk reads some part of it to give us an idea of its intent, but we still do not have the exact wording to properly analyze it. In addition, the bill text on Thomas was not updated to reflect what it says either. So below is all we have to report.
Note: ONE Senator voted AGAINST this amendment, Senator Rockafeller of West Virginia. He should be commended for standing up against this harmful amendment. His contact information is at the link.Till I know more.
eAdvocate
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
AMENDMENT NO. 1744
Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I now call up Vitter amendment No. 1744 to the appropriations bill currently before the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. VITTER] proposes an amendment numbered 1744.
Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available under this Act shall be used to provide housing assistance benefits for an individual who is convicted of aggravated sexual abuse under section 2241 of title 18, United States Code, murder under section 1111 of title 18, United States Code, an offense under chapter 110 of title 18, United States Code, an offense under chapter 110 of title 18, United States Code, or any other Federal or State offense involving sexual assault, as defined in 40002(a) of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13925(a)).
Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I hope this is viewed universally as a commonsense, bipartisan amendment. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment through the rollcall vote which we will have. It is very simple, very basic, and I think very appropriate. It says that for the most serious crimes that exist--violent crimes, crimes against women and children, very serious crimes by anyone's definition--these will be disqualifiers for Federal housing assistance.
I bring this amendment for two simple reasons. First, I think this should go hand in hand with committing those extremely serious crimes. Again, we are not talking about threshold crimes. We are not talking about first-time drug offenses. We are talking about aggravated sexual abuse, murder, sexual exploitation of children, violence against women.
Those are the four big categories, very serious, very violent crimes. Usually, these are crimes focused on some of the most vulnerable in our society, such as children and abused women. I think it is very reasonable and common sense to say these crimes have very serious consequences. One of those--the most obvious is a stiff jail sentence, in some cases life. But one of those consequences is also going to be the Federal taxpayer is not going to give you housing or give you help for housing.
There is a second equally, maybe more, important reason to support this commonsense disqualifier. It is to protect those other folks who need and use Federal housing assistance and help clean up what historically have been areas that actually congregate violent crime in some of our worst social problems, in Federal housing projects.
I grew up in New Orleans. This has been a perennial problem in New Orleans. But I am happy and proud to say
[Page: S5823] GPO's PDF
it is a problem that has been getting better, being solved bit by bit, particularly post-Katrina. Similar to most major American cities, in the 1950s and 1960s, huge housing projects began to be built and began to grow in New Orleans. They were, unfortunately, centers of some of the worst of some of our social ills, particularly violent crime and drug abuse.
And that is because we had a policy which actually congregated--and I hope that wasn't the intent--the worst of those problems in these housing projects. Of course, that fed on itself and made many of these problems even worse and certainly subjected innocent folks trapped in those housing projects to some of the worst problems of our big cities.
In New Orleans, since Katrina, we have taken significant steps to get away from that. We have instituted new policy. They are less dense--these housing projects--and there are more mixed income; not 100 percent of the folks in these projects are subsidized. It is usually a mixed approach so that there are some market based, some partially subsidized, some heavily subsidized, but less dense environments. So we have taken specific steps to try to learn from the horrible mistakes we made in Federal housing projects particularly in the 1960s and early 1970s.
This commonsense test fits in exactly with that approach, and it says we are not going to subject people in these centers of subsidized housing to the worst violence and the worst social problems we have. We are not going to congregate violent criminals, drug abusers, and others in these housing projects.
So that is the second compelling reason to support the Vitter amendment. Keep in mind the innocent folks in those housing projects who get some subsidized housing help. They deserve better. They do not deserve to be subjected to the worst of the worst, these horrible social problems that in the past we have actually congregated in public housing projects.
So, again, I hope this is viewed as it should be, as a commonsense amendment and one that deserves wide bipartisan support. I would also note it is extremely similar to an amendment that passed on the recent farm bill without controversy--the same basic rule with regard to the Food Stamp Program. So I urge all my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to support this straightforward, reasonable amendment on the rollcall vote we will, hopefully, have soon.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, first, let me commend the Senator from Louisiana for his amendment. It would restrict criminals who have been convicted of certain violent or sex crimes from receiving housing assistance through HUD's public housing choice neighborhood and tenant- and project-based section 8 programs.
Public housing authorities and private property owners who provide assistance under these programs are already required under Federal law to deny admission or assistance to individuals who are subject to lifetime registration on a sex offender registry under a State program. However, when you move to the next stage, strangely enough, it is discretionary.
Under current law, prior violent criminal activity may be grounds for the denial of assistance for public housing and the section 8 programs, but it is not required to be grounds to deny that kind of assistance. That is exactly the point that Senator Vitter is trying to make. So his amendment would tighten the current law to make it very clear that under certain categories--aggravated sexual abuse, murder, and murder in the second degree, sexual exploitation, and other abuse of children and violence against women--individuals convicted of those crimes would not qualify for public housing assistance under the programs that I have mentioned.
As Senator Vitter said, this is a commonsense amendment. It will help to make housing safer for the law-abiding citizens residing there. He has targeted serious crimes, and I think his amendment should be adopted. I am going to support the amendment, and I will be urging its adoption.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
...
ALERT: Sen Vitter has again -passed an amendment- attacking sex offenders in another bill
7-24-2013 Washington DC:
On 7-23-2013 Sen. Vitter (his website) presented an amendment on the senate floor which attacks some or all sex offenders; since I do not yet have the details of the amendment I'm not sure of the exact wording, but it deals with Housing (HUD). It appears this is his way of doing things so no one from the public knows about it until it has been accepted; his MO!
The Senate was working on S-1243 "Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations," an appropriations bill, and I am quite sure Vitter's amendment was inserted into that bill.
Later today, hopefully the clerk will update Thomas and we can then tell exactly what he did.
The Senate voted on the amendment and it passed 99-1; that is how I was made aware of his actions.
Till I know more.
eAdvocate
May 23, 2013
‘Sex Offender Village’
5-23-2013 Florida:
For this Op-Doc video, we visited a small community in Florida known as “Miracle Village,” where more than 100 registered sex offenders have settled since 2009. Surrounded by sugar cane fields, the community has become a rare refuge for them as they try to rebuild their lives in one of the only communities that will have them: stringent residency requirements make it almost impossible for them to live anywhere else.
We come to this documentary from two very different perspectives. Lisa has spent years examining sex crimes from the victim’s point of view, making documentaries that try to de-stigmatize the survivors and argue for their access to justice. David spent his years as a public defender in Brooklyn, Harlem and the Bronx, defending people accused of doing the victimizing. These contrasting perspectives have made for a lively collaboration in which we have found common ground.
We live in a society that is terrified of sex offenders, sometimes with good reason. But in some cases the perpetrators, and not just the victims, are denied justice. Every high-profile sex crime spawns a rush to do something about the “predators” among us. Unfortunately, these so-called solutions are doing more harm than good. In the past 25 years, the laws governing sex offenses have gone from punitive to draconian to senseless. The term “sex offender” simply covers too wide a range now, painting the few truly heinous crimes and the many relatively innocuous ones with the same broad brush. This overly broad approach wastes resources that could be better spent, for instance, on clearing the huge and unforgivable backlog of untested rape evidence kits.
We see even deeper problems: the explosion of sex offender registries, stringent yet demonstrably ineffective residency restrictions, and the bizarre world of “civil commitment,” where we punish what someone might do rather than what he or she has done. All of this suggests that our entire approach to dealing with sex offenders has gone tragically off the rails. ..Source.. by Lisa F. Jackson is an Emmy-winning documentary filmmaker based in New York. Her last film, “Sex Crimes Unit,” chronicled prosecutors in the Manhattan district attorney’s office and “The Greatest Silence: Rape in the Congo” won a special jury prize for documentary at the 2008 Sundance Film Festival.
April 2, 2013
Overcoming housing barriers for sex offenders
4-2-2013 National:
Sex offenders remain some of the most difficult to place in the labor market
Release into the community from a correctional setting is a daily struggle, even when you have only been incarcerated for a short period. Many of the responsibilities and basic needs that were met while in the community are often much harder to gain back with a criminal background.
Policies regarding employment and housing of ex-convicts vary from state to state. There are varying perceptions in the philosophy of continued punishment, or allowing for those barriers to be overcome.
In addressing the constant and growing problem of the parolee population in terms of employment and housing, sex offenders remain some of the most difficult to place in the labor market. Finding appropriate and suitable housing in terms of their parole stipulations and landlord’s willingness to rent to current and prior felons remain some of the key issues.
Meeting parole requirements and other issues
Sex offenders often have additional parole stipulations, which make it even more difficult for them to find stable housing. Even if stable housing is found, it’s most likely found in a dangerous or crime-infested neighborhood, decreasing their chances for success in the community. Housing for sex offenders should be utilized through Prisoner Re-entry programs; the community as a whole needs to work with these organizations.
Typically, private landlords and transitional housing programs can alleviate the pressure on sex offenders in finding more stable housing. Also, working with parole agents who supervise these sex offenders can help establish an acceptable or felony-friendly housing list, which should be maintained by the parole agent, the landlords, or the non-profit organizations who provide the housing services.
Addressing parole stipulations is also important in understanding what barriers exist in sex offenders search for suitable housing. Typically, sex offenders are required to register at their local police and/or sheriff’s department quarterly and to register any new addresses, cars, places of employment, email addresses, and phone numbers.
This population also can only reside within a certain amount of feet from a school or playground. What I have seen is a sex offender must not reside with 1,000 – 2,000 feet of any school or playground.
Parole agents are the ones responsible for the housing placement of sex offenders and if proper housing is not located, they must remain in jail as is it against the law for them not to have an address. Homeless shelters now have been the main focus in the media due to varying concerns that sex offenders are staying their temporarily.
Some of these homeless shelters are within the 1,000 – 2,000 foot range of schools and parks set forth by most parole conditions amongst the sex offender population, however some judges have managed to set forth precedence allowing them to stay at the shelters.
A final issue with the residing within a school zone or park rule is that some schools or parks may even be closed, thus creating a need for exceptions to the rule to be made. If schools and parks are closed and there is no activity in the area from minors or families, why should this prevent them from residing within that area?
Working together to find solutions
It’s apparent after reading this article that the community as a whole needs to work together to provide housing resources to sex offenders re-entering the community.
Non-profit organizations, parole agents, private landlords, and church organizations are examples of community members that can help alleviate the pressures of those entering the community seeking stable and affordable housing.
Prisoner Re-entry programs in general need to address this concern regarding sex offenders as this will become a growing problem, especially since most of them will be released in the near future after serving a long sentence. ..Source.. by Robert Carter who is a PhD candidate at Capella University where his area of specialization is Corrections & Public Safety Leadership. He was awarded a Master of Science degree in Criminal Justice from the University of Cincinnati and a Bachelor of Science degree in Criminology from Indiana State University. During his career Robert has held a variety of roles including Adjunct Instructor, Research Associate, Correctional Officer, and Law Intern.
February 23, 2013
Johnson: She writes about the 'brighter side' of homelessness
2-23-2013 California:
Eileen Pheland, homeless for 18 years, tells what it is like on the streets.
She calls what she has written a book. It is none of that – a pamphlet, maybe. But that is not the point.
The idea that she had written a book is what made me bite on her story. Tell me, please, how you are not going to meet for hours on a bench in the circle at downtown Orange with a homeless woman, who tells you to come there because she has written a book entitled "The Brighter Side of Homelessness?"
I showed up at the park.
It took a half-hour to figure out she was not coming into the park. She was instead, I discovered, seated on a bench across the street outside of the bank. With homeless people, these things happen.
Her name is Eileen Pheland, the correct spelling of which she confirmed when I asked her about it and she handed me her book.
"The Brighter Side of Homelessness?" I asked her incredulously. How can there be such a thing? She just looked up at me with a big smile on her face.
"It's been 18 years, and I'm still smiling," she said, almost laughing. "It's not what's on the outside. It's what on the inside. And I don't hide it. Inside there is confidence, happiness and joy."
I sat down next to her.
She is 47 years old, a native of Brooklyn and, indeed, still speaks with a rapid-fire Brooklyn accent. It was there where it all started.
She was in her 20s and living with a man who had two daughters, the oldest of whom, well, simply could not stand her.
"I was just a house mouse, she'd say of me," she said. "But we were happy. We were comfortable. And one day, he got rid of me. He didn't want me no more."
It sent her into a spin, she acknowledges. Her health deteriorated fast. She bounced from her mother's home to her sisters' homes. It was like she was half-dead, she said.
When friends finally put her out of their Miami home, it began the nearly two decades of homelessness for Phelan, who by then had been medically diagnosed as permanently physically disabled. Her legs were badly injured in an accident while she was still in Brooklyn.
She since wandered the streets in five cities before landing in Orange County 1½ years ago.
"I was in Honolulu, and one day I looked on the Internet for the safest places in the U.S. Orange County came up," Pheland explained. She cobbled together her disability money and flew to John Wayne Airport. She rented a storage locker and a post office box in Costa Mesa, and ...continued... by BILL JOHNSON
November 28, 2012
Sex offender in 'shock' at Ayer's new bylaw
11-28-2012 Massachusetts:
BOSTON -- Convicted Level 3 sex offender John King testified he visited the Ayer Police Department April 19 to fill out paperwork notifying them of his intention to move into a home at 6 Whitcomb Ave. as required by law.
As his civil-rights lawsuit against the town opened in U.S. District Court on Tuesday, King testified "the woman behind the glass" told him that in addition to filling out a standardized change-of-address form, he also needed to produce two pieces of mail as proof he lived at the house.
King testified he was shocked when he returned April 25 carrying the requested freshly-posted mail, and instead was confronted by Ayer Police Chief William Murray who told him he could not move in because of the town's new sex-offender bylaw.
It has been revealed that between King's first visit and his return, Murray lobbied Ayer selectmen by email, asking them to have the town clerk quickly post the bylaw because of a Level 3 sex offender's intention to move onto Whitcomb Avenue. The bylaw was approved at Town Meeting in October 2011 and approved as to form by the state Attorney General's Office on Feb. 21. The AG's letter also included a warning that the bylaw may be susceptible to a constitutionality challenge.
The letter included an instruction to post the bylaw in five public places before it could take effect. That posting didn't occur until April 24.
The lawsuit was filed by King, 39, and his wife Ashley King, 23, seeking to overturn Ayer's bylaw as unconstitutional. It restricts where Level 2 and Level 3 sex offenders may live, such as within a 1,000-foot perimeter of all town parks, schools and senior-housing projects, among other sites.
King was convicted of rape and indecent assault and battery in 1999 and was released in 2005 after serving six years in prison.
In June 2011, Ashley King's parents purchased the single-family house at 6 Whitcomb Ave. for their daughter to rent-to-own from them. Ashley and John met early that fall.
In February, Ashley learned she was pregnant. The Kings married in March and John King planned to let his Worcester room rental lapse at the end of April. The couple testified being unaware of the bylaw which "grandfathered" existing sex offenders but prohibited offenders from establishing a new residence within a protected zone once the bylaw was enacted.
Under questioning by his attorney, Eric Tennen, King testified he'd never been asked to produce mail when he registered previously.
King said he told the dispatcher, " 'I'll have to go and get those for you somehow'... It was kind of like asking me for the keys to a car I don't own."
King reported feeling "a shock. I said I didn't know what I was going to do... I was blown away."
King said Murray advised him he could live on Whitcomb Avenue for 30 days before being notified by the police to move out in compliance with the bylaw or else face a civil penalty.
"I'm not just trying to invade your town or just randomly move here," said King.
King testified being further agitated by an April 27 email from Murray, stating that Ayer police would still generate a public notice that King lived in town.
"I was taken aback. I'm sure the police don't love me but I thought I'd been straight forward," King said. "I was just very angry. I'd certainly never heard of it before. I thought it was kind of vindictive. I was scared for Ashley and afraid they were going to paper the neighborhood. I felt there was a good likelihood of something happening to her."
Instead, the couple moved into the basement of Ashley King's parents' Harvard home in May. The Ayer house is unoccupied. Their baby boy was born on Halloween. The three live in cramped quarters in Ashley's former second-floor bedroom, down the hall from her parents.
Town attorney Leonard Kesten asked whether she was aware of Ayer's sex-offender bylaw. "It was big news in Ayer."
"There was no reason to know about it," said Ashley King.
Testimony opened Tuesday with Dr. Laurie Guidry, president of the nonprofit Massachusetts Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, saying there was little statistical evidence to support the notion that sex-offender restrictive bylaws are effective.
To ban sex offenders from living near parks and senior centers misses the point, said Guidry. "Recidivism is not related to proximity," said Guidry. "The data isn't there."
Guidry suggested tailor-made probationary terms and therapy, which takes into account the offender's actual propensities, are more effective.
"That's the problem with all legislation," said Judge William Young. Custom-made probationary programs and therapies are expensive, he said.
"We don't have that world," said Young. "We do the best we can."
"I'm convinced we can do better," said Guidry.
The trial is to resume today.
Murray has yet to testify. An Ayer selectman may also be called upon to testify on the process that led to the bylaw's enactment. ..Source.. by Mary E. Arata
November 27, 2012
Ruling upholds Arizona real estate law that existence of nearby sex offenders can be withheld
11-27-2012 Arizona:
PHOENIX — A court ruling upholds an Arizona law that says home sellers don't have to tell buyers that a sex offender lives nearby, but it also says lying about it could be fraud.
The Arizona Court of Appeals ruling Tuesday stems from a lawsuit filed by a couple who didn't know an offender lived next to the home they bought.
The couple said they should have been told about the offender and that the sellers lied about why they wanted to move.
The ruling says a judge correctly dismissed most of the case because Arizona law says sellers don't have to disclose certain things, including that a sex offender lives nearby.
But the ruling sends the case back to trial court to consider whether the sellers engaged in fraud. ..Source.. by PAUL DAVENPORT
October 24, 2012
Nov 26 trial for sex offender's suit against Ayer
10-24-2012 Massachusetts:
BOSTON -John and Ashley King hoped to bring their first born, due Friday, home to 6 Whitcomb Avenue in Ayer. Their hopes were dashed Tuesday when the couple was denied a preliminary injunction against the Ayer Police Department.
John King, a Level 3 sex offender, was arrested by the Ayer police on May 15 after being seen leaving 6 Whitcomb Avenue. King was charged with violating state law which requires that adjudicated sex offenders register with police departments in towns where they live or work.
King claims, however, that he properly notified the Ayer police of his intention to move into the house on April 19. King alleges that Ayer Police Chief William Murray personally tried to "stall" King upon learning of a snafu with the new sex-offender by-law.
The by-law, passed by Town Meeting in Oct. 2011, bars Level 2 and 3 sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school, park or senior housing complex. The Whitcomb Avenue house is located within 1,000 feet of both Pirone Park and the Pond Street elder housing complex.
King alleges Murray lobbied the selectmen to prompt Town Clerk John Canney to quickly effectuate the by-law by posting it in 5 public places as required. The posting occurred on April 24 - six days after King claims he made initial contact with the Ayer Police.
Swomley & Tennen, the Kings' attorneys, filed suit against Murray and the Town of Ayer on Sept. 5. The Kings seek damages for loss of consortium, mental anguish, emotional distress, embarrassment, damage to reputation, and reimbursement for John King's criminal defense following his May arrest.
The Kings are asking the court to strike down Ayer's Sex Offender Residency Bylaw as unconstitutional. The couple also sought preliminary relief against the Ayer Police to prevent officers from arresting John King for residing at the Whitcomb Avenue house. The couple now lives in Harvard with Ashley King's parents.
U.S. District Court Judge William Young said he would take no action on the injunction request until there was a "trial with evidence" and suggested Monday, Oct. 29 for a jury-waived trial. The parties ultimately agreed on a Nov. 26 trial date.
The Sex Offender Registration Board website states King was convicted in 2001 of rape and indecent assault and battery on a person aged 14 or older. ..Source.. by Mary E. Arata
August 21, 2012
Ever-growing tent city of sex offenders has neighbors worried
8-21-2012 Florida:
COCOA -- Residents living in a North Cocoa neighborhood said they are afraid of what they call “an ever-growing” tent city just yards away from them.
However, it’s who is living there that has them especially concerned.
“There's four sex offenders and one predator living in these woods right here,” said Ennis Shelton.
Shelton has lived in North Cocoa's River Heights neighborhood on U.S. 1 and S.R. 528 for the past decade.
“I don't think it's right that sex predators can be in the woods, and call it their home,” Shelton said. “And people don't know there's people like that living in the streets behind them.”
According to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement website, there are four registered sex offenders and a predator living in the woods behind the Walmart.
Police said this is all legal due to some recent legislation that passed.
Offenders still can't live within 1,000 feet of a school, daycare, park or playground, which limits where they can stay.
But there is nothing stopping them from walking through a neighborhood or on public streets.
They must register with the Brevard County Sheriff's Office within 48 hours if they move, and re-register every six months where they are re-fingerprinted and photographed.
“At this point, we need to educate people because they are allowed to list themselves as homeless, but they do have to give us an idea of the area they are staying in,” said Officer Barbara Matthews, a spokeswoman for the Cocoa Police Department.
In this case, it’s the woods behind Walmart.
But Shelton disagrees.
“I want to know that the police know where they are, and a tent in the woods is not 'where you are,'” Shelton said.
The issue is, however, the offenders are camping on private property.
Cocoa police said they are meeting with the property owner to see if they will be allowed to stay.
There are currently 50 registered sex offenders and three predators in the city of Cocoa. ..Source.. by Greg Pallone, Reporter
June 25, 2012
Sex Offender Policy Requirements Updated
6-25-2012 National:
On June 12, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) issued Notice H 2012-11 State Registered Lifetime Sex Offenders in Federally Assisted Housing, which reiterates statutory- and regulatory-based responsibilities to prohibit admission to federally assisted housing for individuals subject to a lifetime registration requirement under a state sex offender registration program, and supersedes Notice H 2009-11.
The new policies stem, in part, from a 2009 OIG audit, which estimated that 2,094 to 3,046 assisted households included a lifetime registered sex offender.
This notice clarifies regulations concerning admissions and strongly recommends additional steps to prevent individuals subject to a lifetime registration requirement under a state sex offender registration program from receiving federal housing assistance.
The notice further specifies that owners/agents who erroneously admitted prohibited participants after June 25, 2001 must evict that household member or terminate assistance for the entire household.
Changes Between This Notice and Notice H 2009-11
The new notice applies to all public housing and multifamily assisted housing project-based and tenant based rental assistance programs, including new forms of assistance yet to be offered, and most multifamily mortgage insurance program, as listed:
Section 202 Project Rental Assistance Contracts (PRAC)Mandatory Administrative/Procedural Changes
Section 811 PRAC
Section 811 Project Rental Assistance (PRA) demonstration
Section 202/162 Project Assistance Contract (PAC)
Section 202/8
Section 202 Senior Preservation Rental Assistance Contracts (SPRACs)
Section 8 Project-based
Section 236
Section 236 Rental Assistance Payment (RAP)
Section 221(d)(3) Below Market Interest Rate (BMIR)
Section 101 Rent Supplement
Public Housing
Tenant-based Housing Choice Voucher
Project-based Certificate and Housing Choice Voucher
Moderate Rehabilitation
If an owner/agent determines that they erroneously admitted a lifetime sex offender, they must offer the family the opportunity to remove the ineligible family member from the household. If the family is unwilling to remove that individual from the household, the PHA or O/A must terminate assistance for the household.
Owner/agents must ask for, and applicants must provide, a complete list of all states in which any household member has resided. Failure to accurately respond to any question during the application process is cause to deny the family admission.
Additionally, PHAs and O/As must ask whether the applicant, or any member of the applicant's household, is subject to a lifetime sex offender registration requirement in any state.
O/A must provide a rejected applicant with a written rejection notice in accordance with the requirements at Paragraph 4-9.C of Handbook 4350.3 REV-1, Occupancy Requirements of Subsidized Multifamily Housing Programs.
Recommended Changes
In addition to the above regulatory requirements, HUD recommends that O/As and PHAs
adopt new procedures at admission and at annual recertification/reexamination to prevent lifetime registered sex offenders from receiving federal housing assistance.
Use of the Dru Sjodin National Sex Offender Database, an online, searchable database hosted by the U.S. Department of Justice, which combines the data from individual state sex offender registries and/or other available national, state, or local resources.
Use of other available databases through their local law enforcement agencies.
Screen adult members of the household AND juveniles.
Ask current households if any member is subject to a state lifetime sex offender registration program in any state (and if the recertification screening reveals that the tenant has falsified information or otherwise failed to disclose criminal history on his/her application and/or recertification forms, pursue eviction or termination of assistance
So what does this mean to your screening and admissions policies? Read on for a summary of impacts.
Screening Prior to Admission
Owner/agents must follow established guidelines in order to ensure that no lifetime sex offenders are admitted into federally assisted housing. This requirement to screen for sexual offenders was effective June 25, 2001, and was announced to the multi-family housing industry re: HUD HSG Notice 02-22, which was released on October 29, 2002.
Owner/agents must perform criminal screening, before admission, to determine if an applicant, or any member of an applicant's household, is subject to a lifetime registration requirement under any state sex offender registration program.
If the owner/agent discovers that an applicant household includes a member who is subject to any state lifetime sex offender registration, the owner/agent must offer the family the opportunity to remove the ineligible family member. If the family is unwilling to remove that individual from the household, the O/A must deny admission to the household.
Existing Residents/Tenants
HUD recommends that at annual re-certification or re-examination, owner/agents ask whether the tenant or any member of the tenant's household is subject to a state lifetime sex offender registration program in any state.
This is a recommendation, not a requirement. However, if an owner/agent discovers that a household member was admitted in error, the owner/agent must immediately pursue eviction or termination of assistance. The O/A must offer the family the opportunity to remove the ineligible family member from the household.
These rules apply to any household member who was subject to a lifetime sex offender registration requirement at admission and was admitted after June 25, 2001.
For admissions before June 25, 2001, there is currently no HUD statutory or regulatory basis to evict or terminate the assistance of the household solely on the basis of a household member's sex offender registration status.
As pointed out in the notices, when terminating tenancy (eviction) or assistance, you must comply with the requirements outlined in HUD Handbook 4350.3 Revision 1, Change 3, Chapter 8.) ..Source.. by Colleen Bloom
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
