By Jennifer K. Woldt of The Northwestern Determining where sex offenders can reside may be taken out of local hands if the Wisconsin legislature acts on a bill currently making its way through committee, a move some officials do not think is appropriate. A bill currently before the state Assembly’s Committee on Corrections and Courts would nullify local ordinances that restrict where sex offenders can reside. Town of Algoma Chairman Time Blake, who helped craft the town’s ordinance, said determining where sex offenders can reside is an issue that is best dealt with at a local level because communities know what they want and how to best handle the issues they are facing. The bill would not allow communities the ability to do that, Blake said. Under the bill, ordinances local municipalities would no longer have the ability to enact ordinances that restrict where sex offenders can reside. Any ordinances currently in place would no longer be valid. The bill would require level one sex offenders, those who have been committed as sexually violent individuals or have committed certain specific sex offenses against a child, be supervised with a global positioning system for life and be restricted from living within 100 to 250 feet from areas where children congregate. “It does absolutely nothing to protect our children,” said Blake, who took part in the March 11 public hearing held on the bill. “And that’s what these ordinances are created to do, to keep sexual predators away from our kids.” The Town of Algoma became the first municipality in the state to restrict where registered sex offenders could live when it approved an ordinance in November 2006. Other municipalities around the state, including Green Bay, Ashwaubenon and Little Chute, passed similar ordinances. Algoma’s ordinance prohibits sex offenders who have victimized a child younger than 16 years old from living within 2,000 feet of parks, playgrounds, churches, schools and bike trails. However, the ordinance also provides a mechanism that would allow offenders to live within the child safe zones if they meet certain criteria. Rep. Richard Spanbauer, R-Town of Algoma, was chairman when the town enacted its residency restriction ordinance in 2006. He said having a state law on where offenders would be able to live could give uniformity throughout the state, however he thinks some changes need to be made to the current bill. He said he had questions about whether the 100 to 250 foot distance from areas where children congregate was far enough away. Spanbauer also noted he would like to make sure the bill addressed offenders who had victimized young children and not teenagers who were involved in consensual relationships. “If they are making a state law that’s going to water it down to a point where it’s not as effective, I would not be in support of it,” Spanbauer said. “It helps to have teeth.”
