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]

Since when did they start making landlords do the work of the police?

[AQUAMAN]

Since 2 years ago, Masonco, you couldn't have missed that one, did ya? Anyhow, if it is indeed working, I guess that's just the way it goes, and so be it, ordinances are very hard to defeat/overturn, esp. if they are working. However, I would like to see the stats. on how many more or less sex crimes on minors has happened since too. Since, these characters could and probably would move to the outskirts, beyond city limits, still within the county, and not be counted now. And still could drive by the schools in stalking their intended prey, and continue into the same sick pattern of the past, irregardless of the new ordinance. The initial thinking may be correct and righteous, but, what were the actual county-wide results, is my question. Why not make that ord. county-wide too while we're at it. Yes, on the opposite side, why impose these strict regs. on the landlords, with legality? Costs them time and money, money we already spend on the cops now. Seems a bit unfair too. It's kinda a two-edged sword, to coin a phrase. But, I am totally against such BS by stalkers of kids, in any degree, and would just as soon these peeps got capital punishment when convicted to start with. Not more chances at parole to repeat their sick crimes. JMO and pretty strongly put, but, those peeps are really not participating in being a constructive/positive human in our society, it's gone on way too long, imho. Those innocent kids are important resources of the future, and deserve our protection, at any cost.

[Edie Lindsey]

I'm on the understanding that the RSO is supposed to contact the local LEOs when he moves into an area anyway, so why force all this responsibility on a landlord to do extra checking on someone who can fudge their identity. Most "landlords" I know don't even live around here, or know what a "school safety zone" is, let alone whether their rental unit is in it.

[masonco]

That's my point exactly. They can track them down and do. Look in the arrests section of the paper. The state guys go after anyone who is a week late registering. When woke up at 1 AM if you know where the perp lives, you are inclined to give the information.

[XLFD]

Everyone so far has made some great points. Most everyone can agree that some of these folks are the lowest common denominator of our society and should be grateful to have the freedoms they have after what some of them have been convicted of doing (BTW, I'm not talking about the Landlords, LOL).

Let's have some more opinions/discussions, particularly to the effectiveness of the ordinance, or an anecdotal quip or two from someone who is a landlord/lady, or knows of one who has to follow this ordinance, or from anyone who may happen to know a RSO and have their take on it.

[masonco]

The registration list is a sham. At this time most those who register are the honest and remorseful ones who are not dangerous to society and probably should not even be on the list.

Those who should register are "homeless" and the new law is that they do not have to register any more. I believe that there are as many offenders living in Ludington under the guise of "homeless" and just sleeping on a friends couch. It is easy to do. Just get a PO box and say you don't have a residence.

How can a landlord prove someone is not living there if their name is not on the lease and they are "just visiting." Many felons do this.

[Edie Lindsey]

Homeless RSOs don't have to register anymore? OMG, is that really so?

[masonco]

So back to the question. How many are really living in Ludington but "homeless"? Who dares post this tidbit in LT? I thought I read it in the Grand Rapids paper (mlive.com) but was not sure on that so thanks.

[masonco]

I responded over there. Thanks. Like you said they can google it if they don't believe it. They they argue it is not true, then we will know they are too lazy too. But...I think they are over in their own territory (wont let me in there and I know why) making mockery of it.

[AQUAMAN]

All these laws and ordinances do is serve for masses of more paperwork, good money thrown after bad, and more pandering to the repeat RSO's. There was a time, not too long ago, when I heard the word castration as a requirement/option with these types. I think that is NOT cruel and unusual punishment, given the horrific crimes involved. Maybe this is the foundation of justice needed to put an end to repeat RSO's for good. There would be no incentive, yet, the individual would survive another day. This homeless factor is weak too, it needs expungement, it only serves to provide another loop hole for them. Which actually is an enabler stance, not a prohibition stance. I think the legal system tries to look proper and just, but, in the end, want more $$$$$$ in their coffers. JMO

[masonco]

There are pills that do the same thing if they so choose.

[Edie Lindsey]

Its hard to cast stones on all RSOs, since some of them are in the rolls for 25 years for victimless crimes such as nude sunbathing, urinating in public, etc. I know a young woman who was effectively raped by an underage guy but couldn't report it due to a fear of being criminally charged herself (which she was threatened with), and winding up on the RSO rolls for the rest of her life. They have various degrees of CSC, we should have various degrees of RSOs.