Quoted Text

SCHENECTADY COUNTY
Laws limiting housing get OK Sex offenders in banned areas may face Oct. 1 eviction
BY MICHAEL LAMENDOLA Gazette Reporter

   The Schenectady County Legislature Tuesday night approved the most restrictive residency restriction laws against sex offenders in the Capital Region, including a provision that will force them to leave their homes or apartments by Oct. 1 or face eviction.
   The New York Civil Liberties Union called the eviction provision “clearly and unequivocally unconstitutional,” said Director Melanie Trimble.
   “My organization is considering all of its options in response to the county’s passing this draconian legislation, including legal action,” she said.
   The county laws make it a misdemeanor for any convicted sex offender, regardless of the severity of their crime, to live within 2,000 feet of any facility associated with children. The legislation, according to town supervisors, would force sex offenders to move to their municipalities.
   The laws also empower the county to remove registered sex offenders who have not moved out of the exclusion zones by Oct 1.
   Trimble said the county “cannot force people out of their houses when they have served their time and they have not reoffended. Without grandfathering these people in, it will not withstand judicial scrutiny.”
   County Legislator Edward Kosiur, D-Schenectady, proposed the laws, saying convicted sex offenders remain a threat to society even after they’ve served their time. Kosiur is using the residency restriction laws as a platform for his pending run for the 105th Assembly District seat, which Assemblyman Paul Tonko, D-Amsterdam, is expected to vacate June 18.
   Kosiur said if elected to the Assembly he would push for a statewide law to provide uniform residency restrictions for sex offenders.
   “Everything is about the offender, offender, offender. What about the victims? The majority of them are under 13, and they will have to live with this all their lives,” Kosiur said. “I’m embarrassed anyone would think this legislation is being done for political gain. This is for the children.”
   The county Legislature approved both laws by 11-3 votes, with Democrats Karen Johnson of Schenectady and Michael Eidens of Niskayuna breaking ranks with their caucus to join Republican Carolina Lazzari of Rotterdam in voting no.
   Eidens, a former Schenectady County Court judge, said the laws “were short-sighted and bad policy” that “would do nothing in my judgment to protect our children and will create a even greater risk.”
   He said the laws would force sex offenders to go underground to find housing in communities that ban them, a violation of the state’s Megan’s Law. Megan’s Law requires anyone on parole or probation or imprisoned for a sex offense on or after Jan. 21, 1996, to register with the state Division of Criminal Justice Services.
   Minority Leader Robert Farley, R-Glenville, said the proposed laws do not go far enough. He advocated the creation of buffer zones extending beyond 2,000 feet to prevent sex offenders from moving into rural areas that contain few child-related facilities.
   “I don’t want these people in our county,” Farley said.
   More than 24 people spoke during public hearings on the laws, with opinions divided almost evenly for and against.
   “I believe this legislation was crafted for political gain and not to keep anyone safe, and when it is crafted for political gain that is immoral,” said Anita Paul.
   Glenville Town Supervisor Frank Quinn said the county’s five town supervisors opposed the proposed laws. He said county legislators never consulted with the supervisors and said the laws raised too many issues requiring clarification. He urged the Legislature to delay passage until after conducting additional research on the laws’ effects.
   County Attorney Chris Gardner said the county is not trying to punish sex offenders. “I’m looking at the crime and the fact there should be longer prison sentences for these crimes. We should not be foisting these individuals back into the mainstream of society where they can have other victims,” he said. “We have some real issues with protecting our citizens. The state has to act comprehensively on the issue and with how we criminally prosecute sex offenders.”
   Schenectady County’s laws will affect people who have been convicted of hate crimes and terrorism; of sexual misconduct and sexual abuse, both misdemeanors; of unlawful imprisonment and kidnapping when it involves minors; of incest; of patronizing a prostitute age 14 or younger; of promoting prostitution of a person younger than age 16; of disseminating indecent material to minors; of forcible touching and sexual abuse of minors, both misdemeanors; of unlawful surveillance; and of rape, sodomy and other violent sex crimes.  

Quoted Text

Uproar in Scotia over sex offender is justified
L.J. CULLEN Scotia

  I am writing to express my outrage over the whole sex offender in Scotia nonsense. Plain and simple, this boy did more than “make a mistake,” as some seem to think. He has changed the lives of three innocent children forever.
   They were not offered a second chance. The appalling part is, he received almost no punishment. He is out living among our children! He has to register as a Level 3 sex offender. By definition, that means he is more likely to repeat his offense. Why is he permitted to walk, work, shop and live with our children nearby?
   Some who write in are not parents themselves and maybe don’t have the maturity level to understand the effect of what Richard Matthews has done. So, yes — I strongly believe that sex offenders should not be anywhere near places that children are. And while I don’t live on Washington Avenue, I do live in the village and my children have friends that live there. And no, my kids are not permitted to play at those friends’ houses because of Richard Matthews. I am not willing to have my children at risk so he may live without repercussions to his actions.
   How is he to know what he did was wrong unless he is faced with a penalty? What does he think? Doesn’t he see the uproar he is causing? The yellow tape on the trees? Don’t you see that children no longer play outside as much? I really don’t care that he was a soccer player, a Boy Scout, a friend. He has ruined the lives of three children and is at risk to do it again.   

Quoted Text

County lawmakers fear-mongering with sex offender law

   The proposal before the Schenectady County Legislature that will not allow convicted sex offenders to reside within 2,000 feet of parks, schools and daycare centers is scheduled for a vote tonight. Most sex offenders cannot enter or loiter near parks or schools already, or they face violation of their parole or probation. So what is the point? Is anyone safer?
   The crazy thing about this proposal is that when bedtime rolls around, the parks, schools and day-care centers are closed. For about 16 hours of the day, most of these offenders can drive or walk near these same places. But when they are closed and no children are likely to be near them, the county wants to insist that sex offenders live at least 2,000 feet away. It makes little sense unless you are peddling fear and prejudice or running for office without a record of achievement. And because I know the legislators have a record of economic revival and have voted to increase staffing in the social services area to handle the case of reported child abuse, I have to fall back to the fearmongering rationale.
   Getting votes at election time is not a crime, but it is a shame when legislators forget the Constitution that they take an oath to protect and rush to pass laws that make a difficult situation worse. Sex offenders who are in a stable program of recovery, which includes employment, counseling and conditions of regaining some position in society, are less of a threat to public safety. Forcing them to move interrupts these conditions and does not accomplish the stated goals of the law.
   Advocates claim to be for the laws because they “want the children to be safe.” If this were true, one would think that convicted drug dealers, prostitutes and others would be kept away as well. The idea for a new law is bad, likely unconstitutional, and may cost the taxpayers a great deal in penalties if the courts should rule it invalid.
   WILL SEYSE
   Scotia  

Quoted Text

Carl Strock THE VIEW FROM HERE
Carl Strock can be reached at 395-3085 or by e-mail at carlstrock@dailygazette.com.
Sex crime
hysteria still
what it is
   Further to my report the other day about the recidivism rates of people who have committed sex offenses, I am grateful to the reader who forwarded to me a document from the Center for Sex Offender Management, which is a joint project of the State Justice Institute and the National Institute of Corrections.
   The document cites a number of studies that found recidivism rates well above those found by the U.S. Department of Justice, the state Division of Criminal Justice Services, and the state Division of Probation and Correctional Alternatives, which were the sources that I used.
   The rates covered a great range — from as low as 6 percent to as high as 53 percent, depending on whether the studiers counted new offenses of any kind or only new sex offenses (I referred in my summary only to new sex offenses), how long a period of time the former offenders were tracked, and other factors that I could not determine but presumably including how many people were studied.
   Even allowing for different methodologies, different sample sizes, different time periods of the studies, I still don’t know how to reconcile the differences. They seem to me too large to be attributable to random variation.
   The Justice Department, for example, found that only 3 percent of those who had molested children were rearrested for new sex crimes against children within three years of their release from prison, which is obviously a very low rate. A meta-analysis cited in this other document found a 13 percent rate for new sex offenses of any kind, not just against children, after a four-to-five-year period, which is not inconsistent with the first finding, but still seems a bit of a reach.
   Yet another study found that over a 25-year period people who once molested children have a very high rate of 52 percent of being arrested for new sex offenses (though not necessarily against children).
   None of these studies, unfortunately, measure exactly the same things.
   And none of them, to my mind, justify the kind of hysteria that seems to be sweeping the country and that is leading to such absurdities as limiting where people who once committed sex offenses may live — as if the location of a person’s residence is a crucial element in the commission of crimes. If that were so, we would be wise not to let someone who once robbed a bank live within 1,000 feet of a bank, or someone who once stole a car live within 1,000 feet of a parking lot.
   That is the kind of reasoning, or un-reasoning, that motivates local political bodies to enact legislation that bars people who once committed sex offenses from living within so many feet of schools or playgrounds.
   Specifically, it’s the kind of unreasoning that motivates the Schenectady County Legislature to bar former sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a “public or private elementary, middle or high school, child care facility, public park, public playground, public swimming pool, public or private youth center,” which means anywhere in any populated part of the county, and which the Schenectady County Legislature is poised to do tonight.
   You can viciously beat someone half to death, ladies and gentlemen, get sentenced to five or 10 years in prison, do your time, get out and live wherever you want. You don’t get listed on a state registry of explosively violent individuals who have to be guarded against. Nobody can look you up on the Internet, see your photo, your criminal record, and a red arrow on a map showing exactly where you live.
   Nobody cares what the recidivism rate is for explosively violent individuals, and nobody passes legislation limiting where they can live.
TERMINOLOGY
   Please note my crafty use of the term “people who have committed sex offenses,” as opposed to “sex offenders,” which is something I just thought of.
   You know how it has become politically correct to say “persons with disabilities” rather than “the disabled” and so forth? The idea being that the personhood comes first and the limiting condition second. The disability should not be seen as the central fact of a person’s existence, which is supposedly implied when we talk about “the disabled,” “the blind,” or “the schizophrenic.”
   I don’t necessarily endorse that view, but let’s at least be consistent.
   How readily we talk about “sex offenders,” as if that were a permanent and central fact of a person’s being, no matter how long ago the offense might have occurred, no matter what kind of counseling or therapy the former offender might have gone through to overcome his unacceptable urges, no matter what effort he has made to live straight or for how long.
   In the speech of almost everyone, including especially politicians, those people are “sex offenders” first, foremost and forever. Which we don’t do with pickpockets, drunk drivers, or even murderers.
   Only with people who have committed sex crimes do we insist on labeling them for life, as if they are unchangeable, even though recidivisim rates, whether you accept the lowest or the highest, show otherwise.
   I will be done with this subject when we are done with the hysteria and with the ridiculous laws the hysteria produces, which I don’t expect will be anytime soon.
ONE FOR DEANGELIS
   Score one for Patricia DeAngelis, in her final year as district attorney of Rensselaer County. A sex-crime conviction in which she had an indirect hand has been restored by an appeals court after having been overturned by the original trial court.
   The overturning, in January of last year, was one of a string of defeats she suffered, which surely contributed to her not being a candidate for re-election this year. The case involved an unemployed 33-year-old man in the city of Rensselaer by the name of Burton J. Hunter who allegedly had forcible sex in his apartment with a 17-year-old girl of his acquaintance. He claimed the sex was consensual.
   The crucial matter was that after accusing Hunter and just a few weeks before Hunter’s trial was to begin, the girl accused another man in Schenectady County of a similar assault, which might possibly have cast doubt on her credibility had a jury known about it. But the Rensselaer County district attorney’s office, though aware of the second charge, didn’t tell the defense about it.
   This seemed to me like a minor matter, since the second accused man ultimately pleaded guilty, and I said so at the time. The trial judge, Patrick McGrath, thought differently. He thought the second accusation might have led the jury to doubt the girl’s entire testimony, so when the matter was brought to his attention, he reversed the conviction.
   Last week the Appellate Divison of state Supreme Court overruled him.
   DeAngelis did not prosecute the case. An associate of hers did, at a time when she was an assistant district attorney, back in November 2002, but she did present the case to a grand jury.

Quoted Text

EDITORIALS
Lousy laws on sex offenders

   Tuesday was a sad day for Schenectady as the county Legislature adopted mindless legislation that not only plays to public hysteria about sex offenders, but promotes it. Pandering is the only word for that, and some of these lawmakers — including the legislation’s main sponsor, Ed Kosiur, who is running for state Assembly, and Bob Farley, who wanted to make this already-Draconian measure even tougher — have shown themselves to be very good at it.
   The two laws — one making it a misdemeanor for sex offenders to live within 2,000 feet of schools, parks, daycare centers and other places kids congregate; the other calling for eviction, starting Oct. 1, of any who do — are mindless because they don’t take into consideration the threat posed by different types of offenders, or the fact that their recidivism rates are significantly lower than the average rate for other criminals. They don’t even protect children, because although sex offenders may not be able to live in a particular area, there’s nothing preventing them from going there. They also act as if the biggest threat is some stranger snatching and molesting a child, when in fact the vast majority of sex crimes are committed by a friend, relative or acquaintance of the victim.
   In fact, the legislation may make the problem worse by denying sex offenders the jobs, therapy and other social support they need to avoid repeating, and by driving them underground where authorities cannot keep a close eye on them.
   Some of these issues would have been brought out if the lawmakers had consulted professionals in the field, law enforcement officials, town supervisors (all five in the county were opposed), etc., but as the Rev. Jim Murphy, a critic of the legislation, made clear Tuesday night, they did not. They did this entirely on their own. And it’s nothing to be proud of.  

Quoted Text

Why single out sex offenders for registration?

   It seems that there are strong views on both sides of the “registered sex offender” debate and both have valid arguments to support their opinions. People want sex offenders either removed some distance from any area where children play, learn or may congregate (which is anywhere) or to be allowed to live where they choose, arguing that they have served their time and have paid their debt to society the same as any other felon released from prison.
   I can certainly see the validity of both sides of this issue, but I always seem to come back to the same frame of mind whenever I think about this from the perspective of one, like myself, who does not have children. There are much worse felons who could be living in our neighborhoods than sex offenders, and ones who are a threat to more than our children. And we would never know it if they did.
   According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice, “of the 272,111 persons released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, an estimated 67.5 percent were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within three years, 46.9 percent were reconvicted, and 25.4 percent resentenced to prison for a new crime.” Those “released” include not only sex offenders, but also rapists, arsonists, burglars, armed robbers, murderers and the whole gamut of felony convicts. Also, according to the Bureau, “sex offenders were about four times more likely than non-sex offenders to be arrested for another sex crime after their discharge from prison — 5.3 percent of sex offenders vs. 1.3 percent of non-sex offenders.” So, it seems that sex offenders have a relatively large recidivism rate (though still only about five out of 100) of a similar crime. But, more importantly, it says that “sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense — 43 percent of sex offenders vs. 68 percent of non-sex offenders.”
   To me, this says, first, although there is a high likelihood that after release, sex offenders may commit the same crime again, records show that the incidence of their committing any crime at all after release is less than other types of criminals. Secondly, there is an even higher likelihood that persons released after incarceration for crimes other than sex offenses will commit another crime, this time entirely different from the one they originally perpetrated. While sex offenders may offend again, armed robbers may rape. Thieves may thieve again or resort to assault, or murder. Arsonists may steal. Something in their brains is motivating them to commit a crime again, even a different one.
   We are all potential targets of these felons — not just our children. It does not seem fair to me that only sex offenders need to register rather than all felons. I would like to know when convicted felons live near me. But that would be against their privacy. What happened to the privacy of sex offenders? We should either register every felon or none.
   DAVE HART
   Cohoes  

Quoted Text

Kosiur ‘homework’ was to count the votes

   In regard to Mr. [County Legislator Edward] Kosiur’s interview on the 11 p.m. news on June 12, I have much to say, and I’m going to say it in as few words as possible.
   First of all, I am not a Democrat and never have been. I am a mugwump — a person who was formerly a Republican and no longer is. I have been that way since the Reagan administration, and I might say that I never will be a Republican again.
   Mr. Kosiur said in the interview that he had done his homework, and I’m sure he has. He has decided to take all the sex offenders out of the part of his district that has the most votes and send them out to us country bumpkins. He is supposed to represent the entire district — not just the portion of the district that has the most votes in it. Mr. Kosiur is not capable of representing any district as an assemblyman or as any other elected official.
   Shame on the Democrats for backing him.
   WILLIAM MASSOTH
   Pattersonville

Quoted Text

Carl Strock THE VIEW FROM HERE
With new ban, sex offender
can’t move!   

Here is a little wrinkle in Schenectady County’s new residency restrictions on former sex offenders.
   One of the intended consequences of the recently passed law was to force a 21-year-old former offender by the name of Richard Matthews to move off Washington Road in Scotia, where he is the guest of Will Seyse, former mayor of the village.
   Some of the neighbors on that street have expressed dismay — panic, I might almost say — at living in proximity to someone officially classified as Level 3, which is the most serious ranking on the state Sex Offender Registry, and have wrapped their shrubs in yellow caution tape as a visible sign of their displeasure.
   Well, as a result of this new law, which bars registered offenders from living within 2,000 feet of schools, parks, day care centers and so forth, Richard Matthews now can’t move! That’s right, he’s stuck where he is, on Washington Road.
   Why?
   Because the new law allows registered offenders to stay where they are until Oct.1 but, effective immediately, bars them from moving into restricted zones. Those zones have not been mapped but probably make up all of Schenectady County except for the more remote hills and dales of Duanesburg and Princetown.
   Matthews tells me he was ready to move out of the Seyses’ residence because of the stress of living with all the hostility and was actually looking for an apartment on Jay Street, in the heart of downtown Schenectady, where he works, but was told by his probation officer that such a move would be verboten. Of course. Jay Street must be within 2,000 feet of more than one forbidden facility.
   He can stay where he is, but he can’t move anyplace else, at least no place realistic.
   As for what happens on Oct. 1, it’s entirely likely that the law will be challenged in court and a stay will be put on its enforcement until the challenge is resolved. So it may be a long time before Richard Matthews is able to move, as much as he would like to.
   Therefore, I hereby bestow on the Schenectady County Legislature the 2007 View From Here Award for Unintended Consequences.
   And while I’m at it, I also bestow the 2007 View From Here Humanitarian Award on Will and Lois Seyse for their courage and decency in sheltering someone who is as despised today as lepers were in days of old.
RECIDIVISM REDUX
   Lies, damn lies, and statistics, they say, and I guess there’s something to it. Take the letter to the editor the other day regarding the recidivism rate of sex offenders. It quoted the same study I had quoted, from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, but chose this line: “Sex offenders were about four times more likely than non-sex offenders to be arrested for another sex crime after their discharge from prison — 5.3 percent for sex offenders vs. 1.3 percent for non-sex offenders,” to which the letter writer added, “So, it seems that sex offenders have a relatively large recidivism rate ...”
   Which, alas, is the wrong conclusion to draw from what was a meaningless comparison to begin with. The meaningless comparison was between the number of sex crimes committed by people who have previously been convicted of such crimes vs. the number of sex crimes committed by people who have previously been convicted of other crimes, like bank robbing.
   Who cares about that? The point is, the rate of re-arrests for sex offenses was very low: 5.3 percent, compared with an overall re-arrest rate of 68 percent for those who committed non-sex crimes. That’s the relevant comparison

Quoted Text

“I don’t want these people in our county,” Farley said.

Quoted Text

Because the new law allows registered offenders to stay where they are until Oct.1 but, effective immediately, bars them from moving into restricted zones. Those zones have not been mapped but probably make up all of Schenectady County except for the more remote hills and dales of Duanesburg and Princetown.

Quoted Text

Sex offenders don’t deserve second chance

   Re June 3 Carl Strock column: I would like to comment on the fact that Mr. Strock feels so strongly about giving sex offenders a second chance at life and a good place to live that he has completely lost sight of what happens to the victims of these sex offenders.
   He, and others who feel sorry for the offender, show absolutely no concern or compassion for the victim. They are never mentioned in any of the articles or when they speak.
   Carl Strock specifically mentions Richard Matthews, the Level 3 sex offender who has been taken in by former Scotia Mayor Will Seyse and his wife, Lois. Richard Matthews sexually abused three children who are related to him. While Richard is getting a second chance at his life, is a second chance at innocence and childhood being given to Richard’s victims? Is there a second chance for any victim of a six offender? Has any thought been given to the victims and how they must go through life with the memory of these horrific attacks on them?
   Get real, Mr. Strock. If Richard, or any other sex offender, was living across the street from your young children or grandchildren, or sexually attacked them — would you still feel so strongly about giving him a second chance?
   GAIL ELLIOTT
   Scotia

Quoted Text

Towns brace for Schenectady laws  
  
By PAUL NELSON, Staff writer
Thursday, June 21, 2007

SCHENECTADY - Several Schenectady County town leaders, upset that the county's new sex offender law will steer predators their way, may come up with their own version.
  
So far, however, town leaders haven't detailed what their specific approach might be.

Glenville Supervisor Frank X. Quinn, said officials in Rotterdam, Duanesburg, Niskayuna and Princetown are among those concerned with two measures the County Legislature approved earlier this month.

Under one law, sex offenders at every level would have to leave their homes starting Oct. 1 if they live within 2,000 feet of public parks, pools and playgrounds, schools, day care and youth facilities. A second law says offenders cannot move within 2,000 feet of such areas.

Because the city is more densely populated, sex offenders living closer to public sites would have more housing options in the suburbs and rural areas. Some may be forced into hiding, a prospect that worries Niskayuna Supervisor Luke Smith.

Town officials also want answers about how the law came together and want county officials to explain their exclusion from the debate.

County Legislator Edward Kosiur defended the bill.

``The bottom line is that we need to protect our children, no matter where they live,'' said Kosiur, adding that the public needs to demand state judges give maximum sentences to defendants convicted of sex crimes.

Quoted Text

County Legislator Edward Kosiur defended the bill.

``The bottom line is that we need to protect our children, no matter where they live,'' said Kosiur, adding that the public needs to demand state judges give maximum sentences to defendants convicted of sex crimes.

Quoted Text

Political ambition drove sex offender statute

   It is unfortunate for the public that the Schenectady County Legislature chose to pander to the political aspirations of Messers. [Bob] Farley and [county Legislator Edward] Kosiur rather than properly weigh the impact these simpleminded laws will have on the actual safety of the children they purportedly intend to protect.
   Mr. Farley’s rejection of the “management” of sex offenders because he believes he can stop any sexual abuse of children by banishing anyone with a criminal history of any type of sexual misconduct suggests that he would rather reject the recommendations of those with the professional experience in treatment and criminal justice areas and enhance his political aspirations on the backs of the fear-ridden public and ex-offenders.
   KARL H. GOHLKE
   Slingerlands  

Quoted Text

Residency restrictions won't protect children  
First published: Saturday, June 23, 2007

It is appalling that Schenectady County has decided the only way to protect their children is to prohibit ex-offenders who must register as sex offenders from living anywhere in the county that is within 2,000 feet of where children gather.
Do residency restrictions protect children? I believe they do not. Society needs to protect children from the sex offenders who have not been caught. The Troy Police Department Web site reminds us that "many sex crimes (and especially those against children) go unreported." Not reported means not convicted and not registered.

  
Since I am not the expert, I suggest you read what the experts say: "Twenty Findings of Research on Residential Restrictions for Sex Offenders and the Iowa Experience with Similar Policies" at http://www.dc.state.ks.us/publications/ sex-offender-housing-restrictions.

What happens to these human beings who have served their time and paid their debt to society? In Miami, sex offenders are living under a bridge. That's where the parole officer visits to make spot checks on them. It is not acceptable to force persons to become homeless. Instead of successful re-entry into society, we are forcing ex-offenders away from affordable housing and public transportation to rely further on social services supported by tax dollars.

DEVON BAIRD
Rensselaer

Quoted Text

Intent of sex offender residency misguided  
First published: Saturday, June 23, 2007

I am troubled by the change in residential requirements for sex offenders residing in Schenectady County. This is a complex issue and, unfortunately, it seems there was an overly simplistic solution.
First, not all sex offenders are pedophiles, so it does not make sense to bar all sex offenders from residing near locations children frequent.

  
Second, it is unfortunate that all levels of sex offenders are subject to these requirements. Ostensibly, they are ranked into levels because there are differences in their likelihood of re-offending. One wonders why they are separated into different levels if they will all be subject to the same residential requirements.

Finally, it is too bad Schenectady County legislators did not look at the problems occurring in Rensselaer County because of its residential requirements. Many sex offenders have been relegated to rural areas of the county where they lack access to jobs, transportation and other services they can only access in Troy.

These new requirements are going to make re-entry into society more difficult, impeding offenders' abilities to support themselves and displacing these security issues to another locale.

AMANDA BRAZEE
Albany

Quoted Text

Supervisors say county legislation is shortsighted
By JESSICA HARDING
hardingj@spotlightnews.com

Schenectady County’s five town supervisors have all spoken against the county’s new local law restricting where convicted sex offenders can live, saying the law will negatively impact the communities they serve.

Glenville’s Supervisor Frank Quinn spoke on behalf of the county’s five town supervisors at the Schenectady County Legislature’s meeting Tuesday, June 12. He said he was opposed to the law that would restrict convicted sex offenders at any level from living within 2,000 feet of any place where children congregate.

The Legislature passed two local laws at the meeting. One restricted where offenders can live, and the second will force offenders currently living in restricted zones out of their homes by Oct. 1.

“The supervisors are in total agreement about what’s going on here,” Quinn said in a telephone interview. “We are steering sex offenders from the city into the towns. We are not addressing the problem and not dealing with the real issues.”

The elected local officials whom Quinn said were closest to the 84,000 plus residents living in the county’s towns opposed the legislation because they feared it would have many negative impacts on their municipalities.

Furthermore, Quinn said, none of the county’s supervisors were involved in discussion regarding the issue and neither were other stakeholders such as local police chiefs, probation officers and the county’s district attorney.

Quinn said the town supervisors meet with members of the County Legislature once a month during meetings of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Committee, and the issue of restricting sex offenders was never brought up at those meetings.

“All of a sudden, there it is on the docket, and I had to go and get the information out myself,” Quinn said.

Quinn presented the Legislature with a list of nine concerns and urged the legislature not to vote at Tuesday’s meeting but wait until answers were available.

The town supervisors said both laws are an attempt to steer sex offenders into the five towns, and lack the necessary data that show these laws work. They added that the legislation will force offenders underground.

Rotterdam Supervisor Steven Tommasone said one of his biggest concerns is the constitutionality of the law.

“The county should know whether the law is constitutional. The DA and the county attorney need to be sure of that,” Tommasone said.

He added that, as supervisor, his role is to create laws that won’t be challenged in court because that only costs the taxpayers.

Tommasone said he was also worried that this law would force offenders into rural areas of the county where they wouldn’t be easily monitored.

“Supervisors in particular are charged with ensuring the safety of our communities,” he said.  
Niskayuna Supervisor Luke Smith said he doesn’t think this law will work to protect children. He said the law will force offenders underground and give people a false sense of security.

Smith was also disappointed that he was not involved in discussions.

“The county pushes the idea that we are working on intergovernmental cooperation, but they don’t include us in this matter,” Smith said. “I think this law in an unfortunate way to deal with this issue, and I would have liked to voice my opinion before the vote.”

Smith said many residents assume offenders wouldn’t move into Niskayuna because of the town’s lack of two-family housing.

“Pedophiles are not just poor people; they have resources and they already live in Niskayuna,” Smith said.

The Intergovernmental Cooperation Committee met again Tuesday, June 19, and Quinn said Ed Kosiur, D-Schenectady, and architect of the legislation had promised to get answers to the supervisors’ concerns.

In a telephone interview, Kosiur said the county planners were still working on a map outlining where offenders can and cannot live, and more answers would be available once the map is completed.

Kosiur said one reason why this legislation was so quickly passed was because the city of Schenectady and the village of Scotia were going to pass their own residency restrictions and the county didn’t want to have a “hodgepodge of local laws.”

“We took the heat, and we are going to continue to take the heat to protect our children,” Kosiur said.

Quoted Text

Kosiur said one reason why this legislation was so quickly passed was because the city of Schenectady and the village of Scotia were going to pass their own residency restrictions and the county didn’t want to have a “hodgepodge of local laws.”

Quoted Text

David beat Goliath
in the great debate
over sex offenders
   Two very passionate sides of an issue had a chance to exercise their rights [at the Schenectady County Legislature’s June 12 hearing on sex offenders]; the pros lost and the amateurs won!
   For decades in Schenectady County, a well-paid, well-rehearsed “lobby for the deviant” has had victory after victory. Program after program has been financed for this group. They all failed, yet they just kept bringing new programs and getting funding. Rehab should be renamed “relapse,” since that is what is most likely to occur.
   The pro-deviant lobby had all the necessary components for victory at the county’s public hearing. They had home court advantage, having worked this arena for decades. Heck! Most of them have the county legislators’ phone numbers on speed dial. They had a priest and a Quaker. They had a state expert who worked in the field of sex offenders with dire predictions should the law pass. They knew the name of every judge in the county. They had an attorney willing to return from retirement should these laws pass, so he can fight them.
   The pro-deviant lobby even imported a minister-sex offender all the way from Rochester, for a personal “coming out,” in front of the gathered body. After a long church-appropriate soliloquy he said, “all of you would be happy to have me as a neighbor!” I did not see a lot of hands raised in invitation.
   A group of rank amateurs — mothers, fathers, grandparents — took on the powerful, well-financed pro-deviant lobby. Afterward, they went home to raise their families, go to their jobs and mow their lawns. They were motivated by a unique special-interest group — children, women and families!
   What both sides need to do now, rather than start a prolonged, legal battle, is to begin a national discussion on how the states and national govern-Sex law backers
made noise, not sense
   The self-serving grandstanding while the county Legislature took up the sex offender law was a good example of political theater, but little else.
   Much was said on how vitally important it is to protect our little ones from these skulking, despicable, evil sexual predators. Absolutely nothing was said about actions that would actually deliver such protection. The result was ineffective legislation whose sole consequence was to praise virtue and excoriate sin.
   The proponents of the sex offender law fail to understand that where these shameful miscreants spend the night is of no consequence. What is important is what they might do during the day, regardless of where they live.
   When the more level-headed members of the Legislature tried to argue that this is a complicated problem requiring both sound research and discerning judgment, they were hooted down by their more vocal opponents. It has been long said that empty barrels make the most noise.
   What was actually going on was that some legislators had the smarts to realize that to restrict where sex offenders might live would have a red-hot, votegetting issue to boost their political careers. They jumped on this bandwagon for that reason. At the same time, these worthies had to also deny the existence of such a motive. This transparent duplicity was obvious for all to see.
   ALMY D. COGGESHALL
   Niskayuna

Quoted Text

From bad to worse
Sex offender law will just drive them underground
BY MICHAEL C. EIDENS For The Sunday Gazette

   All of us can agree: Nothing is more important than protecting our children.
However, the sex offender residency restrictions recently passed by the Schenectady County Legislature will do nothing to increase the safety of our children. The restrictions, which forbid registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of places where children congregate, may be politically popular but are likely to result in greater risk to children and other potential victims in our community.
   Emotionally reactive legislation based on fear and anger, rather than research and data, is not the answer. Iowa was the first state in the country to establish residency restrictions for sex offenders, but is now looking to repeal their residency restrictions. The number of sex offenders who are unaccounted for in Iowa has doubled since the residency restrictions went into effect. There is no research that proves that residency restrictions work.
   Our county should have considered the practical implications of passing this legislation. It will effectively force all sex offenders to establish residences outside of the city of Schenectady, Niskayuna, East Glenville and much of Rotterdam. The geographic areas included in the prohibited 2,000-foot zone are so extensive that realistic opportunities to find affordable housing in this county are virtually eliminated.
   This kind of subject requires careful analysis and discussion in order that we come up with something that is sane, reasonable, enforceable, and really does make our community safer.
   This is “feel good” legislation, because it makes us feel we are doing something to make our children safer. But it is shortsighted, bad policy, and will make our children more vulnerable. It will give us a false sense of security.
   Why? We have sex offenders in our community. We know who they are, and where they are. Now, we will drive many of them underground, and then we won’t know who they are, or where they are.
   Does that make us safer? Of course not.
   We all want our children to be as safe as possible. So let’s go about doing that in an effective way. Let’s not pander to the media or bow to political pressure by giving ourselves a false sense of security. Sex offenders have always lived in our community, but until recently, we didn’t know where they were living. Now we do. And law enforcement and our county government share that information with the community. This new legislation is likely to make that information inaccurate or not available, which does threaten community safety.
DANGEROUS POLICY
   Chasing sex offenders from location to location is dangerous for many reasons. It decreases our ability to track them and treat them. It increases the potential for vigilantism. It will severely impact law enforcement’s ability to track the offender. It will make it vastly more difficult for effective community notification. It is likely to lead to many sex offenders changing locations frequently. And it is likely to lead to sex offenders being more willing to hide and fail to register.
   The new law prohibits level 1, 2 and 3 sex offenders from living within a 2,000 foot distance from a school, playground, public park, public swimming pool, youth center or licensed day-care center. If 2,000 feet protects our children, why wouldn’t 2,500 or 3,000 feet protect them even more?
   My point is that 2,000 feet is arbitrary and can’t stand up to analysis. We need to keep in mind that research shows that as a general matter, in 90 percent of offenses against children, the victim knew the perpetrator. The most frequent location in which sexual abuse occurs is in the victim’s home.
   The key component to community safety is effective community education and notifi - cation. Clearly, we can’t notify people that a sex offender lives near them if we don’t know where those sex offenders live. A tight web of supervision, treatment and surveillance is more important in promoting community safety than where the sex offender lives.
   Residency restrictions are bad policy. Research shows that there is no correlation between residency restrictions and reducing sex offenses against children or improving the safety of children. In fact, these restrictions may make our children more vulnerable to sexual predators. We are at increased risk when sex offenders are homeless or at unknown addresses.
   Some people believe that chasing the sex offender out of town makes the community safer. Whose town do we chase them to? West Glenville? Duanesburg? Princetown? Are there jobs, housing, mental health services and family support in West Glenville? Or do we drive them out of the county? Isn’t a victim in Schoharie, Montgomery, Saratoga or Albany County the same as a victim in Schenectady County? Our position should be simply — no more victims — anywhere.
ONE-UP APPROACH
   Some argue that because Albany and Saratoga counties have adopted residency restrictions, we must also, or else their sex offenders will come to live in Schenectady County. If that argument seems persuasive, then let’s take it a step further. With our 2,000-foot restriction applicable to all sex offenders, our legislation is more restrictive than Albany’s and Saratoga’s. Following this rationale, since those counties won’t want our sex offenders moving there, they can adopt a 3,000-foot restriction. We can follow with a 4,000-foot restriction. As each county tries to one-up the other, we end up with each county trying to be tougher than the other, until of course no sex offender can legally live anywhere.
   Will that make any of us safer? Of course not. It will force many sex offenders to go underground, where no one will know where they are or where they live.
   If every county in New York state makes bad policy, it is still bad policy. The answer lies at the state level, and New York has dropped the ball. Let’s start by recognizing that not all sex offenders are the same. We should be exploring the feasibility of designated halfway houses with shared living arrangements, strict supervision and monitoring with GPS, educating the community about protecting our children, stronger monitoring for Level 2’s and 3’s, and sex offender treatment.
   I voted against this new legislation because it is bad policy. Our efforts would be better spent joining with other counties, pooling our resources and efforts, and demanding that there be an effective statewide solution to the problem.

Quoted Text

County’s sex offender law misguided, and probably illegal

   The New York Civil Liberties Union is gravely concerned about the residency restricts on ex-sex offenders adopted by the Schenectady County Legislature. These laws, which virtually ban ex-offenders from living anywhere in the county and which require relocation of individuals who have made homes for themselves in the county, are ill-conceived, Draconian and irresponsible. Residency restrictions have been shown to make communities less safe because they tend to drive ex-offenders underground and away from the support networks and law-enforcement monitoring that have been shown to be successful deterrents to recidivism.
   New York already has comprehensive legislation that ensures public safety. Megan’s Law establishes a law-enforcement tracking system. For Level 3 and Level 2 ex-offenders, the state requires a 1,000-foot residency separation from day-care facilities, schools and other places where children congregate, and it has established post-incarceration civil confinement for the most dangerous ex-offenders.
   The Schenectady legislation will not hold up in court. Our laws cannot force people to leave their homes and families merely because of a perceived threat that does not exist. Complex problems require complex solutions. The residency legislation is not a realistic or effective means for making sure the community is safe from predators. It is political pandering at its worst and the Schenectady County legislators who voted in favor of these laws ought to be ashamed of themselves.
   MELANIE TRIMBLE
   Albany The writer is executive director for the NYCLU Capital

Quoted Text

Across the hall, a sex offender
Albany County lawmaker says welfare authorities placed children at motels where registered violators reside  
  
By CAROL DeMARE, Staff writer
First published: Tuesday, July 3, 2007

COLONIE -- An Albany County lawmaker called on welfare authorities Monday to immediately stop housing families with children in Central Avenue motels where registered sex offenders live.
Legislator Christine Benedict said conditions are deplorable at three of the motels that she looked into, and town records show numerous building code violations along with police calls for crimes ranging from assault to patronizing prostitutes.

  
"Despite previous denials, Albany County has provided housing for sex offenders in the same building and in the same area that it provided housing for homeless families and children," Benedict said at an afternoon news conference outside the Skylane Motel. "They all were placed there with public monies."

For a time, the Skylane "was home to both convicted sex offenders and families with children," said Benedict, whose 28th Legislative District encompasses the stretch of Central Avenue in which three motels are separated by a trailer park.

Acting on complaints from constituents, the Legislature's Republican minority leader began her own investigation this year of four motels in the 1900 block of Central Avenue, just west of Route 155.

At issue are the Skylane, Best Value Inn, Blubell Motor Inn and the Tompkins Motel. The Tompkins is across Central Avenue from the other three and not used much by the county Department of Social Services.

Benedict's and several others' homes are close to the motels, and some residents' backyards butt up against the back lots of the motels. Parents are afraid to let their children play outside, the legislator said.

She said she believes that after she began poking around, families that may have been living at the Skylane, which is where sex offenders are placed, were quickly removed. Yet the nearby Best Value Inn has families, and so may the other motels, she said.

County Social Services Commissioner Elizabeth Berlin conceded later in the day there are no quick resolutions to the sex offender problem.

"Our agency, like many agencies, is struggling with the issues surrounding sex offenders," Berlin said.

She has been part of a multiagency work group over the past three months to make recommendations on issues dealing with sex offenders living locally. A report was forwarded last week to the County Legislature, and one suggestion is to create a housing task force, Berlin said.

"One of the most difficult issues is where sex offenders live," she said. "Certainly, the Department of Social Services was involved in those conversations, and we will continue to be involved. We have a mandate to house individuals when they are homeless and eligible and that includes individuals with criminal records."

Berlin said there have been past emergency circumstances when families were placed in a motel with sex offenders "as the absolute last resort, and the family was moved out of there as quickly as possible."

A man who identified himself as a resident of the Skylane said he is a registered Level 1 offender, the lowest on the registry. The man said he agreed with Benedict that children should not be housed near sex offenders and he has "seen kids every now and then" at the Skylane, where he has lived off and on. Many of the motel residents are registered levels 2 and 3, he said.

"Parents need to do what parents do, watch their children," he said. "Maybe families with children should not come here. Why would you put the fox in the henhouse? That's the bottom line."
The man said he didn't commit any crime but had no choice with the way the criminal justice system works but to plead guilty in Albany County Court in 2003 to having sexual contact with a young teen. He received six months in jail and five years' probation.

Benedict said she obtained information showing that from Jan. 1, 2006, to March of this year, 272 children were placed in the four motels as were 28 sex offenders. The lawmaker said she was subsequently told that the number of children dropped to 96, calling the information contradictory.

"Ms. Benedict did not receive contradictory information," Berlin said. She was given information "above and beyond what she requested," and the 272 figure included a Super 8 Motel on Central Avenue. When Super 8 is eliminated, the number drops to 96, Berlin said.

Skylane is used only for "individuals," Berlin said, and no family has been placed there since October 2006. The Best Value was used in 2006 for children, but not this year, Berlin said.

Joining Benedict was County Comptroller Michael Conners, a Democrat, who was asked to conduct an audit of where families and sex offenders are housed. He said an audit is under way and has been expanded to include all motels in the county used by social services.

A preliminary report by his office showed that Alex Patel, who owns the Skylane Motel, told auditors the county paid him $65,000 in 2006 for the Skylane Motel. From January through March of this year, Patel was paid $10,000 for use of the Skylane.

Patel, who also owns the Blubell Motor Inn, could not be reached Monday despite repeated attempts.

Benedict suggested the county develop a housing policy that bars homeless families from being placed on the same property as convicted sex offenders and mandates that sex offenders cannot be placed within 500 feet of a residential zoning district.

Months ago, she introduced a resolution in the County Legislature calling for a sex offender management plan. The measure was sent to committee, where it remains.

Last year, the County Legislature passed a local law restricting Level 2 and 3 sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of schools.

Within the last month, the Schenectady County Legislature passed a more restrictive law that would force sex offenders at every level to leave their homes starting Oct. 1 if they live within 2,000 feet of public parks, pools and playgrounds, schools, day care and youth facilities. Another law says offenders cannot move within 2,000 feet of such areas.

Benedict is concerned that the new Schenectady County law "could push sex offenders into Albany County."

At the Best Value Inn, owner Carlos Barrera was on vacation. His daughter, Rita Brink, said there are no sex offenders living in her motel. "If we know, we don't accept them here," she said.

She said the South Colonie Central School District sends fliers to inform residents about sex offenders in the neighborhood.
Brink expressed sympathy for her residents. "People are down and out, and they need to come to motels to live and they need to be safe."

Legislator Shawn Morse, a Cohoes Democrat and one of the sponsors of the law restricting sex offenders, said, "It's really a twofold issue. On one level of county government, we have strived to protect our children from sex offenders with the law that prohibits them from living within 1,000 feet of schools, and the other level of government is allowing sex offenders and children to be placed in the same building.

"I'm very disturbed to think that people who have struggles -- our poorest people -- are forced to live in hotels that are deplorable," Morse said.

Through Freedom of Information requests, Benedict obtained records from the town of Colonie that showed code violations she called "most disturbing:" exposed electrical wiring, bug infestation, sewage on site, feces on floors, no updated fire alarms and mold in bathrooms.

"We don't have the right to go in there and close them down," she said. "But we do have the right if they don't bring them up to code."

DeMare can be reached at 454-5431 or by e-mail at cdemare@timesunion.com.

Quoted Text

ALBANY
No loophole in sex crime registry
All convicted offenders subject to registration laws
BY MICHAEL GORMLEY The Associated Press

   New York’s highest court on Monday rejected a sex offender’s attempt to avoid being placed on a public state registry, a ruling that will keep some sex offenders from trying to avoid publicity in the communities where they live.
   The Court of Appeals decision comes after a convicted sex offender, Todd North of Jamestown, argued that he committed his crime before the applicable state law was adopted and that the federal charge he was convicted of didn’t equal the state charge upon which mandatory registration is based.
   He argued those loopholes exempted him from registering under the state’s version of Megan’s Law.
   North pleaded guilty in federal court in 2004 to possession of child pornography for downloading computer images depicting children aged 7 to 17 years old in sex acts, according to the court decision. Federal agents seized his home computer in 2002.
   North was sentenced to five years’ probation.
   The state Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders decided North needed to register under Megan’s Law even though he was convicted of a federal charge.
   The court agreed, ruling that even though the federal charge was different from the state sex charge, the crimes shared “essential elements.”
   Federal law makes a crime of possessing pornography involving children under 18 years old, while the state law covers children under 16 years old.
   North also claimed that he fell within a ‘loophole’ because he committed his offense before the effective date of the 2002 state law, according to court records.
   Citing bill memos by the governor and Legislature at the time the law changed, the Court of Appeals found the measure was a “clarifi cation” of existing law, not a new law, and so North was subject to it.
   Monday’s ruling means any sex offender convicted outside New York, or at the federal level, of a crime that is essentially the same as New York’s sex offender statutes is subject to registration laws.
   There is no estimate of the number of sex offenders who would be affected by the ruling.
   Megan’s Law requires most sex offenders to register their address and any changes of address after they serve their sentences.
   This can allow local police and schools to inform residents about the sex offender. The most seriously charged sex offenders also are posted on a state Web site (http:// criminaljustice.state.ny.us/).
   More than 24,000 sex offenders are registered with the state.  

Quoted Text

Benedict is concerned that the new Schenectady County law "could push sex offenders into Albany County."

Quoted Text

Convicted child molester being returned  
  
By KENNETH C. CROWE II, Staff writer
Saturday, July 7, 2007

A convicted child molester who skipped out on his parole last year will arrive at Newark Liberty International Airport Sunday morning under armed escort from India where he was arrested in May, a state Division of Parole spokeswoman said Saturday.
    
Alan Horowitz, 60, will be extradited from New Jersey under a New York arrest warrant issued after he ducked out of the U.S. after meeting with his parole officer on June 7, 2006.

"We're getting him back," said Carole Weaver, the division spokeswoman.

Horowitz was out on parole for his 1991 conviction for first-degree sodomy after he pleaded guilty to an incident involving a 9-year-old boy.

Horowitz, a former adolescent psychiatrist, served more than 13 years of his 10-to-20-year sentence before he was released on parole in 2004. He was in contact with state officials, saying he was living in an apartment complex in Israel. He said he would never return to the U.S. He then fled to India where he was arrested. U.S. marshals are escorting him back from India.

Horowitz will appear in a New Jersey court the week of July 16 for an extradition hearing, Weaver said.

He'll then head to Schenectady County, Weaver said, where he will face charges for parole violation. His original sentence for the sodomy conviction runs through June 28, 2011.

Quoted Text

Where offenders live does matter
BY SUSAN SAVAGE For The Sunday Gazette

   Much discussion and misinformation has surrounded legislation recently enacted by the Schenectady County Legislature restricting where sex offenders may live. What has been missing from the discussion are the facts that led the county Legislature to approve this legislation.
   Over the past two years, many counties throughout the state, including our neighboring counties of Saratoga, Albany and Rensselaer, have adopted legislation prohibiting convicted sex offenders from living near places where children congregate. As a result, Schenectady County has come under increasing pressure to take more and more sex offenders being released from the state prison system. We have been contacted on several occasions to accept between 25 and 50 sex offenders scheduled for release from state prison. Although we have been successful in convincing state authorities that we are not equipped to handle more sexual predators, this situation has become increasingly difficult.
   Schenectady County has been targeted for two reasons. First, the city of Schenectady has an abundance of low-cost rental properties and a developed public transportation system, factors the state looks for when making placements in communities.
   Second, with neighboring communities such as Albany and Troy off limits because of residency laws those communities have enacted, Schenectady County has become the next choice.
   Critics of our proposal have said this legislation will force sex offenders to move into the less densely populated portions of the county. This has not occurred in other counties that have enacted these types of restrictions and it will not happen here.
   While I agree that a patchwork approach of county after county putting residency restrictions in place is not the best solution, it is the only available solution at this time. A statewide approach to sex offender management and residency restrictions is a preferred approach, but one that does not currently exist.
PERIODIC CHECKS
   Another claim critics of this legislation have made is that it will result in sex offenders failing to register. We will work with law enforcement by performing periodic checks to confirm the location of offenders released into our jurisdiction. Those who fail to register will go back to prison.
   Some critics, including town supervisors, are asking that we rescind this law and instead put in place programs to provide “treatment and community support” for sex offenders. This will only serve to make Schenectady County an even more attractive placement for convicted sex offenders leaving our prison system. Schenectady County taxpayers would be given more sex offenders to “manage,” and left to pay for these services.
   There are 208 convicted sex offenders living in Schenectady County. A review of the State Sex Offender registry revealed that of the 115 Level 2 and 3 offenders living in the county, 35 were arrested outside of Schenectady County and another nine were arrested outside of New York state. Eleven of these Level 2 and 3 offenders live in Glenville, Niskayuna or Rotterdam, with the remainder concentrated in the city of Schenectady. Town supervisors who believe that residency legislation will move sex offenders into the towns must understand that sex offenders are already living in their communities.
   A check of the Department of Criminal Justice Services Web site (http://www.criminaljustice.state. ny.us/nsor/search_index.htm) will be a sobering experience for those who think that sexual predators are, as one caller to our offi ce put it, “simply individuals who made a mistake.” The state sex offender database details unthinkable crimes committed against children as young as 2 years old.
   I urge every resident who questions this legislation to learn about the sexual predators in this community. What you will find is horrifying and saddening and will certainly lead you to the conclusion that Schenectady County should not be a dumping ground for sex offenders.
TOO CLOSE FOR COMFORT
   In the city of Schenectady, 13 convicted sex offenders live within 200 feet of Lincoln Elementary School. Twelve live within two-tenths of a mile of Hamilton Elementary. In Niskayuna, a convicted sex offender lives .08 miles from a day care facility and one-tenth of a mile from another.
   Sex offenders do not have a constitutional right to live near schools and day care centers. Our children should be able to go to school, a day care or the playground without having sexual predators watching.
   Finally, our critics have said this legislation was not researched and was not given proper consideration. This is untrue. The county Legislature and our staff reviewed volumes of information and studies — which often contradicted each other — pertaining to this issue. We reviewed similar laws and listened to hundreds of county residents.
MANY VOICES
   We have heard from sex offenders and we have heard from victims of sexual assault and their families. We have heard from parents who live next door to a sex offender and from a person who has brought a sex offender into his home. An overwhelming majority of those we heard from are in favor of this legislation.
   After much review and debate, the county Legislature approved the local laws not only because we were called upon by county residents whose lives were directly impacted by sex offenders living in their communities, but because we are a legislature made up of parents, grandparents, doctors, lawyers and business owners who work to protect the children and families that live in all of our communities.
   We recognize that this legislation may not be perfect. But it is the best available option to prevent Schenectady County from becoming a dumping ground for sex offenders that other communities don’t want. We will continue to push the state to address this issue, and we will continue to use all means available to protect children and families in our community.  

Quoted Text

He'll then head to Schenectady County, Weaver said, where he will face charges for parole violation. His original sentence for the sodomy conviction runs through June 28, 2011.

Quoted Text

Clearly, I am NOT a fan of sexual offenders...but this surely is NOT the answer! I stand by my opinion, 'tracking devices on all of the'...PERIOD!

Quoted from bumblethru

Gee I wonder where Ms.Savage lives! I'll have to look into that one!

Quoted Text

Truth at last about vote on sex offenders

   It was a relief to read Susan Savage’s article in the Sunday Opinion section of your newspaper on 8 July and learn, at long last, minus all the hyperbole, what actually transpired at the county Legislature meeting re sex offenders.
   Until now all we’d heard was a lot of nonsense about “pandering to the worst in us” and “political theater” and, of course, the New York Criminal Liberties Union had to weigh in with a lot of claptrap about “draconian regulations.”
   Carl Strock was particularly outspoken and miffed that a (gasp) Quaker was ignored. Why a Quaker should be any more knowledgeable about the subject of sex offenders than, say, a Baptist or Methodist is best known to Mr. Strock.
   As for the present housing solution, Ms. Savage is right: it’s not perfect, but it’s a start. As for “counseling” and “treatment” so that these sex offenders can “return to society,” “society” doesn’t want them. The only treatment they merit is that which they’ll receive in places like Dannemora.
   ELI BRADISH
   Gallupville  

Quoted Text

SCHENECTADY COUNTY
Towns push back on sex offender laws
County legislation called ‘Band-Aid’ answer to problem
BY MARK ROBARGE Gazette Reporter

   Officials in the county’s five towns are asking the Schenectady County Legislature to reconsider the harshest rules in the region restricting where convicted sex offenders can live.
   At its Wednesday night meeting, the Glenville Town Board agreed to send a letter expressing its opposition to the laws and asking county officials to explain the reasoning behind the measures. Once the county responds, officials said, they will decide on their next step, which could include a formal resolution asking for the repeal or developing a new law to reflect the needs of the town.
   “They seem to have made a decision without the proper research ahead of time . . . and that’s what we’re looking for,” said board member Edward Rosenberg. “Maybe they can justify their actions, but it doesn’t seem like they can.”
   The county Legislature passed a pair of laws June 12 making it a misdemeanor for a convicted sex offender to live within 2,000 feet of any facility associated with children. The laws also give the county the authority to remove any registered sex offender who has not moved out of an excluded area by Oct. 1.
   The county’s five town supervisors complained at the time they weren’t consulted when the legislation was developed and that it would force sex offenders to move into rural areas in their communities. They have since sent their own letter through the county’s Committee on Intergovernmental Cooperation.
   “I’m concerned that this is a Band-Aid approach to a complex problem and that we’re just exporting the problem to areas where there might not even be sufficient monitoring,” said Glenville board member Mark Quinn. The Niskayuna Town Board planned to ask the Legislature to repeal the laws or at least push back the date when it will begin evicting offenders. Instead, the board has decided to react in similar fashion to Glenville, first making the request in a letter and then considering future action based on the county’s response.
   The Duanesburg Town Board approved a resolution Thursday demanding the county rescind the sex offender legislation. The resolution also asks the Legislature to first consult with all Schenectady County municipalities before creating a new law governing sex offender residency.
   Nearly 60 residents turned out to the board’s regular monthly meeting to voice opposition to the law and support the resolution. Many of those attending the standing-room-only meeting expressed concern over sex offenders migrating to the rural town, where there is a much smaller police presence.
   “People out here are just really upset with this,” town Supervisor Rene Merrihew said before the meeting.
   Princetown’s board passed a similar resolution Tuesday, asking the Legislature to investigate better ways to deal with sexual predators. Town Supervisor Muriel Peterson said the laws neglect to account for the needs of Princetown.
   “It’s important to have them all identifi ed and watched, and we’re not sure the law accomplishes that,” she said.
   Rotterdam board members are expected to act on a resolution later this month or in early August asking the county to rescind the law. Supervisor Steve Tommasone said by effectively moving sex offenders to the rural areas of the county, the laws leave the towns to track those offenders.
   “It’s really going to act to relocate these individuals from the city of Schenectady to the towns,” he said during Wednesday’s town board meeting. “All you’re really doing is shifting them from one part of your community to another, and it really doesn’t address the issue of protecting our children.”
   Quinn said if the county refuses to repeal the law, he would be willing to consider legislation offering similar restrictions to protect rural parts of the town, “but I would have to give it great thought.”
   He said he would prefer the state toughen sentencing guidelines so sex offenders spend more time behind bars and use civil confinement to hold offenders after they have completed their sentences if they are still considered a threat.
   “After plea bargains and after good time served, these terms are often just a few years for offenses that should be yielding much longer sentences,” Quinn said.  

Quoted Text

Talk about child abuse. More than a dozen Schenectady County high school students were “shadowing” our county legislators at a public meeting last night, and they got an unsavory and unvarnished civics lesson. Not only were the youth kept in their seats for four hours, but they had to witness both the ugly refusal by the Chair (Susan E. Savage) to permit debate on what is surely the most controversial piece of local legislation this year, and the nasty sight of posturing and pandering politicians, who “did something to protect children” by passing a meanspirited, shoddily-drafted and predictably ineffective set of residency restrictions on sex offenders. (see a FoxNews23 video covering the story) As today’s Albany Times Union explains, in “Law aims to shield kids: Schenectady County passes housing rules for sex convicts (June 13, 2007), under County of Schenectady Local Law No. 03-07 & 04-07, no matter what their risk level, the age of their victims, or the nature of their crimes, sex offenders may no longer reside near places where children congregate (that is, any elementary, middle or high school, child care facility, public park, playground or swimming pool, or youth center). Not only are they prohibited from moving to a residence within 2000 feet of such places, but:

“The change requires sex offenders — at every level — to leave their homes starting Oct. 1, should they reside within 2,000 feet of public parks, pools and playgrounds, as well as schools, day care and youth facilities.” (emphasis added)

Indeed, if any of those facilities are built, relocated, or licensed within 2000 feet of the residence of a sex offender at any future time, he or she must move within ninety days. These draconian restrictions were passed yesterday by an 11 to 3 vote of the county legislature, with only former judge Michael Eidens, former Schenectady mayor Karen B. Johnson, and Carolina M. Lazzari voting “no.” The legislators who voted “yes” knew two things: (1) many aroused voter-citizens, who are fearful for their children and angry over having sex offenders live near them, want the County to do something; and (2) there is absolutely no evidence that proximity restrictions in any way reduce recidivism, and much research and expert advice that says they are likely to make things worse (by destabilizing the offenders, removing social networks, and making it harder to locate them). Despite the latter fact, the politicians decided to bow to the politically-urgent former one.

In case you’re thinking “they surely aren’t doing this for political advantage,” let me point out that the nine co-sponsors are all Democrats, who would not permit any Republicans to co-sponsor the bill — not even Joseph Suhrada, who had first proposed the restrictions two years ago. (The procedural bullying done by my party, now that they have local and federal legislative majorities, often embarrasses me). The Democratic legislators only became aware of the importance and urgency of the problem when a sex offender moved on the block of one of them, and the folk in one town got very loud in their demands for action. Frank Quinn, a town supervisor (who spoke for four others whose towns would likely be the destination of many offenders displaced from the more populous parts of the County) complained they were never consulted, and said last night: “There’s no reason to do this tonight. . . The problem of how to effectively manage sex offenders has been around for thousands of years.” As the TU reported, he added, “This legislation is really designed to influence upcoming county elections by pandering to selected voters and their fears.”

Quoted Text

DUANESBURG
Residents predict an increase in offenders
County’s sex predator law called bad for rural areas
BY JUSTIN MASON Gazette Reporter

   Sharon Hoffman fears she caught a glimpse of how Schenectady County’s new sex offender residency law will affect Duanesburg.
   Early last month, her 17-year-old daughter and three of her teammates on the high school track team were followed by a vehicle as they jogged along a rural road. She said the girls didn’t think anything of it until the next day, when the same vehicle followed them again.
   Hoffman said the girls reported the incident to school officials, who then contacted state police investigators. Several days later, she learned the driver of the car was a Level 3 sex offender living in the town.
   By October, all sex offenders in Schenectady County will be prohibited from living within 2,000 feet of any facility associated with children. Hoffman, along with many other town residents, is concerned the legislation will chase offenders from the county’s densely populated areas, such as the city of Schenectady and village of Scotia, to the rural fringes.
   “Is it going to be worse out here because all these people are going to move to this area,” she asked. “There’s not very many of them out here now.”
   Dozens of residents turned out at the Town Board’s meeting Thursday to voice opposition and support a resolution asking the county to rescind the law. Board members unanimously passed the resolution, which asks that the Legislature first consult with all Schenectady County municipalities before creating a new law governing sex offender residency.
   “It’s clear Duanesburg won’t sit idly by while they decide our fate,” said Town Supervisor Rene Merrihew after the resolution passed.
   Duanesburg joined the towns of Glenville and Princetown in asking the Legislature to rethink the law. Both Rotterdam and Niskayuna are fashioning resolutions protesting the legislation, officials said this week.
   Some residents attending the meeting asked whether the county would provide the towns with the proper resources — such as added police patrols — to monitor where sex offenders live. Others said the legislation appeared to be a ploy to appease the areas of greatest population.
   Town Attorney Jeff Seigel also disputed the validity of the law. On the outside, he said, the regulations don’t seem to offer any protection for children at all.
   “This is a law that doesn’t get anyone from point A to B,” he told the crowd. “Restricting where someone sleeps at night doesn’t do anything for what they do during the day.”
   Legislator Carolina Lazzari, R-Rotterdam, doubts the effectiveness of the new sex offender regulations and fears they could make the situation worse. As one of the three county legislators who voted against the law, she said the county should seek a better alternative. Legislators Michael Eidens and Karen Johnson also voted against it.
   “It’s very questionable that this legislation can fulfill its intended purpose of keeping our children safe,” Lazzari said during the meeting. “It’s bad policy and it’s a bad law.”
   Officials in neighboring Montgomery County also worry. Board of Supervisors Chairman Thomas DiMezza said the law will have the effect of moving sex offenders from one community to others, namely the rural municipalities that are more difficult to police.
   “[Sex offenders] belong in populated areas so that not only the police can watch them, but their neighbors can watch them as well,” he said Friday. “By having them out in the country, they’re less likely to report on a timely basis and they’re more susceptible to doing the same thing they were doing before.”
   But Legislator Ed Kosiur, DSchenectady, the sponsor of the law and chairman of the county Legislature’s Children and Families committee, said the legislation is crafted to protect all municipalities in the county and to move offenders to areas where they are less likely to harm children. In the case of Duanesburg, he said, there are few areas offenders will relocate to because 90 percent of the town’s residential properties are zoned for single families.
   “These offenders are not going to come out to Duanesburg,” he said Friday. “When we made this legislation it was to protect all children in Schenectady County, not just the city.”
   Kosiur, who is also running for the 105th Assembly District seat, also advocated a stronger state law to monitor sex offenders.
   “That is high on my priority list,” he said.
   He is running against Republican George Amedore Jr., who does not support the legislation, maintaining that current state laws are adequate.  

Quoted Text

Sugar-coating Schenectady’s extremist law

   Maybe you saw the column by Susan Savage, chairwoman of the Schenectady County Legislature, in this newspaper last Sunday, defending the county’s recently passed restrictions on where former sex offenders may live. I hope you did, since it was a fine example of how to sound sweetly reasonable while avoiding the heart of the matter.
   The heart of the matter is that Schemati cally County, alone among jurisdictions in New York state and possibly alone in the nation, not only prohibits convicted sex offenders from moving in to most areas of the county but also arrogates to itself the power to evict such people from the homes they already live in if those homes are within 2,000 feet of schools, playgrounds, etc.
   Never mind if the people in question might have been convicted once, 10 years ago, and might have lived perfectly respectable lives since then. Never mind if they might be employed, might own their own homes, might have families, and might have done everything required of them in the way of probation and counseling. If they are on the state Sex Offender Registry, even at the lowest level, which is Level 1, the county will have the authority, per its newly passed law, to go to court and force them to move as of Oct. 1. Just plain get out.
   Ms. Savage wrote an essay about the county not wanting to be a dumping ground and so forth, and about protecting children from “predators,” without ever mentioning that central fact, which distinguishes Schenectady’s law from the laws of other localities.
   I’m not absolutely positive there is no other law like it in the country, since there is no central clearinghouse for this sort of thing, and what with the national hysteria about sex offenders, municipalities are passing laws faster than you can keep up with them, but the New York Civil Liberties Union says it has looked and has not been able to fi nd any comparable law.
   Melanie Trimble, director of the Albany office of the NYCLU, says, “It’s unprecedented that someone who owns a house can be ejected from that house. Banishment went out in the 14th century.”
   Probably aware, at least at the lawyer level, of the adventuresomeness of this legislation, the county divided it into two different pieces, separating the eviction part from the more commonplace part of not allowing registered sex offenders to move in. That way, I suppose, if the eviction part gets thrown out by a court, the other more commonplace part can still stand.
   You can think what you want about the wisdom or the fairness of this legislation, but to write an essay in defense of it without mentioning the most drastic and controversial element of it, pretending that all we’re doing is protecting ourselves from being a dumping ground, takes a certain insouciance, I’ll say that.
   And I won’t go into my usual riff about the use of the word “predators” this time but will let you students of the rhetorical arts devise your own.
   Nor will I trouble to rebut Ms. Savage’s assertion that the county Legislature did all kinds of research before passing the law, since that is patently false. There is no study that anyone has ever produced that shows any relationship between residency laws and actual sex offenses.
   As for who will be first to challenge Schenectady’s law, we’ll have to wait and see. The tactical question is whether to challenge it now, pre-emptively, or to wait until someone is ordered out of his home. Also, whether to go to state court or federal court, and whether to sue on behalf of a single client or as a class action. But one way or another, the law will be challenged, and challenged for what it is, not for what the chairwoman of the county Legislature misrepresents it to be.

Quoted Text

http://www.dailygazette.com
Carl Strock

Sugar-coating Schenectady’s extremist law

      Nor will I trouble to rebut Ms. Savage’s assertion that the county Legislature did all kinds of research before passing the law, since that is patently false. There is no study that anyone has ever produced that shows any relationship between residency laws and actual sex offenses.
    

Quoted from Shadow

The studies are necessary, but studies being done on the study that you just completed are clearly not necessary. Do it right the first time.

Quoted Text

In Sch’dy, why stop at banning sex offenders?

   Now that the Schenectady County Legislature has voted its pedophiles to be off limits to living nearly anywhere in the county — or, so to speak, voted for a leper colony — I suppose they feel they have done society a big favor.
   Hooray, you may say. But if so, I say, let’s make Schenectady County all the better by doing the same with anyone convicted of a felony. Let’s a