At last night’s Springfield City Council meeting, a proposed ban on where level two and three sex offenders can live brought up some heated debate, which has continued into today’s post-game wrap-up of the matter. From Mike Plaisance’s article in today’s Republican:
The council sent the proposed ordinance to committee after questions were raised about its legality and enforceability. It was for those reasons that the mayor of Marlborough vetoed a similar measure last week.
Council President Jose F. Tosado said it was unfair to target registered sex offenders with residency prohibitions. … [Councilor Timothy] Rooke [who proposed the ordinance] said the city shouldn’t make protecting the rights of sex offenders a priority. … Councilor Rosemarie Mazza Moriarty said a concern about the proposed ordinance is whether any places would be left for registered sex offenders to live, given the large number of schools, parks and other children-gathering spots in the city.
Indeed, the city of Marlborough has been struggling with this same issue. On November 26, the Boston Globe reported that the City Council there voted "in favor of banning convicted sex offenders from living in most of Marlborough by approving a measure that forbids them from living within 2,500 feet of a school, day-care center, or other place where children congregate." On November 30, the MetroWest Daily News reported that Mayor Nancy Stevens vetoed the ordinance, saying, "I believe this particular piece of legislation will give people a false sense of security."
Prior to the veto, feelings and legal concerns in Marlborough appeared to be all over the map. In a July article, the Globe reported that Marlborough’s considered ban, "one of several communities in the state considering such a measure," would prevent sex offenders from living in 95 percent of the community.
Springfield’s Bill Dusty references the considered sex-offender ban in a post today as justification for why "Springfield needs better leadership on the City Council," adding that councilors should either represent "the interests of the law-abiding citizens of Springfield or find another part-time job."
MassLive.com Springfield forum poster "NoPol" argues that without a ban, Springfield will just become a magnet for level two and three sex offenders, since the city is always behind the eight ball with these things. He writes, "[W]hen every other place in the state and country is being hostile to the marginal people in society, Springfield cannot save those people alone, and by trying, we doom ourselves. …We should not be a city that allows sex offenders to live here when other communities are both pushing and pricing them out."
