What is Your Take: Landlords and Sex Offenders

[XLFD]

What is your opinion of this law passed by the City of Ludington in 2007 and its effectiveness?

Article:  Fewer sex offenders living in Ludington in wake of ordinance

Kevin Braciszeski - Daily News Staff Writer

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Fewer registered sex offenders are living in Ludington two years after the city council passed an ordinance requiring landlords to check if renters in school zones are on the Michigan Sex Offender Registry.

“We were able to clear the (sex offenders) living in those zones out of those zones and keep them out and as a result we have fewer sex offenders living in the city,” said Ludington Police Chief Mark Barnett.

Barnett said there were about 10 registered sex offenders living in school zones — a 1,000-foot radius from schools — and a total of about 65 registered sex offenders living in the city during late 2007.

“Frankly, we had a bad situation with people living in these areas,” he said about school zones.

Now there are none known in the school zones and about 45 in the city.

“We were kind of surprised by the result,” Barnett said about the overall number decreasing by so many. “It was unintended, we didn’t start out to drive them from the city.”

There was some resistance to the ordinance initially after the council approved it in October 2007, Barnett said, because it gave landlords the responsibility for checking on the renters. But, Barnett said, without the ordinance his department had no way of knowing if registered sex offenders were living in school zones.

He spoke about the issue Monday while providing his department’s 2009 annual report to the city council.

 

Article VIII: Sex Offender Residency (Ludington Municiple Code)

Sec. 34-231.  [Landlord responsibilities.]

A landlord who rents property as a residence that is located within a school safety zone shall:

(a)   Have prospective tenant(s) sign a form that indicates whether tenant or any member of tenant's household, over the age of 18 who will reside in the rental property, is or is not a registered sex offender, or required to be registered, with the Michigan Public Sex Offender Registry or other similar state sex offender registry.

(b)   Prior to such rental, check the Michigan Public Sex Offender Registry to determine if prospective tenant(s) is/are a registered sex offender. If landlord does not have access to the Internet, landlord may fill out a form provided by the Ludington City Police Department requesting the police department to check the registry to determine whether the prospective tenant is registered.

(c)   Sign a form provided by the Ludington City Police Department, for landlord's file, verifying that the landlord has asked the tenant if they or any member of tenant's household who will reside in the rental property is a registered sex offender and confirming whether or not the prospective tenant was listed on the Michigan Public Sex Offender Registry.

(d)   Landlord must retain the forms required by subsections (a) and (c) above, while tenant occupies the rental property, and must make such forms available to the city police department if requested.

(Ord. No. 169-07, § 1, 10-8-2007)

Sec. 34-232.  [Prohibitions.]

Landlord shall not rent rental property located within a school safety zone as a residence to a prospective tenant if tenant:

(a)   Admits that they or any member of tenant's household who will reside in the rented property is a registered sex offender.

(b)   Is found to be registered on the Michigan Public Sex Offender Registry.

(c)   Fails to sign the form described in subsection 34-231(a) above.

(Ord. No. 169-07, § 1, 10-8-2007)

Sec. 34-233.  Penalty.

(a)   If landlord violates the provisions of this article VIII, for the first violation only, the City of Ludington Police Department will send a letter to the landlord informing the landlord of the violation.

(b)   After the landlord has been given a letter from the Ludington Police Department under subsection (a), at any time landlord shall subsequently violate this article VIII, then the landlord shall be liable for a municipal civil infraction punishable under Code section 1-7.

(c)   Landlord will not be in violation of this article VIII if a tenant is not required to be registered at the time landlord rents to tenant, but tenant is subsequently required to register with the Michigan Public Sex Offender Registry after the commencement of the lease or rental.

(Ord. No. 169-07, § 1, 10-8-2007)

[masonco]

They don't care who lives (I mean stay)there. They just make sure the right names are on the lease.

[XLFD]

It's possible you may be right, Angela, but I think you are using fallacious reasoning. Most 'slummy' areas around Ludington are outside school safety zones, and they are not required to do anything new, and are more likely to get RSOs if the SSZs are cleared.

Isn't putting the burden of being a citizen peace officer on a 'slum-lord' with limited resources instead of on a paid LEO who should know the laws a flawed system to begin with?

[Angela]

I guess I was mostly thinking of the area around foster school - I grew up in that area & to my knowledge most of the landlords are of the "slummy type" - but I could be wrong. Most RSO can only afford apartments in those types of neighborhoods - but you are correct in that a pd LEO should be doing the majority of the work on this - the landlords should still be held accountable though. But you know how shay & henderson area - raises taxes etc.... blah blah to have a LEO do this job that they should be doing anyway

[XLFD]

Point taken. Landlords should have more civic responsibilities perhaps. But let us not forget that landlords, like sex offenders, are of many different types. You may have a Mr. Roper that lives at the same place and keeps tabs on things, or someone from far away (Chicago, Florida, etc.) whose only contact with a tenant was a prior landlord who gave a good reference, and everyone in between.

Many landlords use managers that do not have the ultimate "authority to rent to a tenant" as their go-between. These managers have no compulsion to do anything by this law, even though they may handle all the paperwork. The question you must ask yourself is: are you comfortable knowing that LPD Chief Barnett depends on a civilian police force to enforce state law he should rightly have the duty to perform?

[AQUAMAN]

Didn't you know X, they are planning on alot of boating/sunbathing this coming season, with the new fireboat just purchased for about $200K, grant money. Won't have much time for those old RSO's anymore. Duty or dooty?

[Angela]

do ya think they'd give me a ride on that new boat? maybe thru the harbor on the 4th? harde harhar!

[XLFD]

They'd have to roust all the homeless RSOs off the boat first, Angie.

[XLFD]

Aq, if the typical LPD member was out in the harbor sunbathing in their speedos on the new fireboat, I would start railing for wind turbines in the lake to obstruct that view.

[AQUAMAN]

You guys, funny funny! When it comes to these homeless RSO's they aren't required to file with the LPD anyhow? I would think that in itself would be a 30-90 day misdemeanor. In the spring/fall months they could be stalking in an alley just a few feet away from any school zone, and not be breaking terms of law? That's wrong if true. It's also wrong that they don't have to report, irregardless of homestead/renting situations. If they are sleeping somewhere, anywhere, they should have to report accordingly anyhow, or go back to jail. Those numbers too, 45-65, in our little town, sound awfully high to me. JMO

[masonco]

You are right in your understanding and it was decided by the state supreme court. As for the numbers, remember all a parent has to do is say an 18 year old is with their 15 1/2 year old daughter and he's on the list for 25 years.
Then if caught drunk and peeing in a dark alley...you get on "the list"
If you are forced to plea deal cause you know they jury will believe the child who threw blame away from mom's boyfriend..you on the list.

It is the ones not on the list that are a danger. Look at the doctor on the news today. I heard (I hope it is exaggerated) over 150 kids as young as 2 years old were molested by him. He never had a previous record.

[XLFD]

That is the creepiest story I ever read, Masonco. If the videotape evidence is irrefutable, I hope this monster gets the ultimate punishment.

[masonco]

And remember he was not one who registers...ever. See my point that those convicted or on register are the ones you don't need to fear? You know where they are and can decide for yourself if they are dangerous.