Ludington's Registered Sex Offenders: Homeless and Unmonitored

[XLFD]

It's been about a year and a half since the Ludington Torch has reported on the status of our area's Registered Sex Offenders.  This topic was first touched upon in February of 2010 with the thread sex-lies-and-vigilantes and then later in June of 2011 in this thread ludington-landlords-on-patrol, and checked out Scottville's situation in December of 2011 with the thread scottville-gets-ludingtonized-rental-rehab-and-rental-registering. 

                                     Ludington Police Chief Mark Barnett, Freelance Lawmaker

 

I have this interest in RSOs because of an odd local policy crafted by Ludington Police Chief Mark Barnett and passed into law by the city council in October 2007 which put the responsibility of determining whether registered sex offenders are living within 1000 ft. of a school squarely on Ludington landlords, then later in 2012, on Scottville landlords.  Other communities use their local police to monitor such activity.  What a concept.

 

My first reaction is that it's a dumb policy, and will eventually have an unintended consequence of having more RSOs living in forbidden areas, if the local police leave the police work to landlords who may be ignorant of the law, ignorant of their distance to the nearest school property, or ignorant as to whether a RSO is on their property when they themselves live outside Ludington.   

 

Back in 2010, there were six RSOs within school zones, contrary to the chief saying there weren't any at a city council meeting.  In June 2011, there were still six and three of them were brand new to the list.  This went down to five in December 2011 with a homeless person in the mix.

 

It is now April 2013, five and a half years after the ordinance and what do we have?  An exponential growth in the number of homeless or "address unknown" RSOs in Ludington.  We now have twelve RSOs either within 1000 ft. of a school, living at an unknown address, or homeless.  That is very troubling.  Here is a list:

 

 

If you know one or more of these people, or are one yourself, I am making no value judgment on any of them just because they made the list.  They may be fully rehabilitated or erroneously labeled, but they are either within a school safety zone or are a homeless person who just happens to have that RSO tag on them.  I do make a value judgment on our local policy, however; it needs to be repealed and the local police need to own up to their responsibilities, that the State has laid in their laps.

 

There were no homeless or whereabouts unknown RSOs back in early 2010 when Chief Barnett said erroneously that there were none in any school safety zones.  There are now four living in apartments in those zones, and eight who could be living anywhere in Ludington, without a home. 

 

But is it tough all over?  Let's take a look at two other cities in the area with similar populations of Ludington but without some ordinance that absolves their police officers from the responsibilities of checking out where RSO's live. 

 

Manistee has a population of 6220, and has about half the listings that Ludington has.  Only one of their's has an unknown address, no homeless ones. 

 

Big Rapids has a population of 10,695 (including a lot of college students) and has one homeless RSO and one with an address unknown. 

 

Ludington has a population of 8069 and has seven homeless RSOs, one address unknown, and four definitely living within a school safety zone.  There are as many RSOs living in the 49431 zip code than there is in Big Rapids and Manistee zip code combined.

 

A homeless registered sex offender is scarier to me more than one living a couple of blocks away from a school, but hey, the homeless have no landlord policing over them.  In Ludington they don't even have the police policing over them. 

[Willy]

Job well done X. I'm sure we can all figure out that these "homeless" RSO's are using that status to avoid revealing where they actually reside. It's time the City Council repeal this ordinance and make the Police responsible for enforcing the State requirements and start keeping tabs on the RSO's in Ludington.

[XLFD]

Thanks Eastwick and Willy.  As a supplemental point, in our earlier threads, it was pointed out that the MI Appeals Court had made a ruling that homeless people did not have to register back in 2010, which was true, but it did not hold up under scrutiny of the MI Supreme Court, who ruled 4-3 in 2011 that homeless people still had to register (more of that here).  But are these people really 'homeless' or using that label for their own benefit? 

[Wanda Marrison]

Mr. VanLoon no longer lives in Mason county.

[AQUAMAN]

I'm curious to know how old the list posted above is. If it's pretty recent, then why is Van Loon still listed? My guess is that the list has not been updated in a while, which shows that the LPD isn't on par with recent changes and updates that should be done perhaps regularly, or every 30-45 days, so the locals know whom is where, and who is not here anymore. To update every year or 6 months isn't really on par with this important info. the public needs to know. As for the list now presented, not knowing the whereabouts of 8 out of 12 persons, with one not even having a picture, gives me a feeling the LPD is incompetent on this subject matter.  But, who gave anyone at city hall an A+ for transparency lately?

[XLFD]

It does denote a certain lackadaisical attitude doesn't it?  According to the MI RSO registry, Vanloon registered on 1-8-2013 as homeless, living primarily in Ludington.  For the latest date of registry and information about the RSO's crime, you can check out the data here:   http://www.mipsor.state.mi.us/PSOR_Search.aspx.  I think I was told that most register quarterly.

Homeless RSOs can travel about as hoboes used to and remain within the law as long as they establish some place as a domicile, as I read the judicial interpretations.   

[Wanda Marrison]

Ed I agree with you. I have a grandson in Lakeview and grandson in Foster. As a grandparent I would like to know more about who and where they are on this list. I will soon be asking some questions.

Hope you are feeling better.

[XLFD]

I at least have to thank Wanda Marrison for her limited participation, at least she has more stones than the other councilors.  But I will just say dittos to the EyE's comments. 

Wanda, let's assume you are right about Mr. Vanloon, that he currently lives elsewhere; and this may be expected from a transient individual.   Do you think it is a good thing that he registers here as homeless and yet takes his show on the road?  He has a couple of heinous offenses on his record, so some other community has him perhaps residing there, but as long as he shows up to his registrations and other things required of him here in Ludington he can reside, without registering, somewhere else.  And he can do so with ease, because the LPD doesn't accept the responsibility of dealing with these people directly.

[Wanda Marrison]

Wanda, let's assume you are right about Mr. Vanloon, that he currently lives elsewhere; and this may be expected from a transient individual.   Do you think it is a good thing that he registers here as homeless and yet takes his show on the road? No I don't

He has a couple of heinous offenses on his record,(I am all to aware of the heinous offenses) so some other community has him perhaps residing there, but as long as he shows up to his registrations and other things required of him here in Ludington he can reside, without registering, somewhere else. Your RIGHT  

And he can do so with ease, because the LPD doesn't accept the responsibility of dealing with these people directly.

I do not know how the LPD actually deal with list. I will be asking this as a grandparent and a CC member.

[XLFD]

Thanks for your candor-- without me as target, LOL, I hope you furnish any answers you get with the rest of us.

While you're here, I have a question:  Are you going to be running for city councilor this fall?

[Wanda Marrison]

At this time I do not know. I have not had a very positive 4 years.  

Will really depend on my mom's health in the next few weeks. She is fighting cancer right now.

[AQUAMAN]

Thanks for your keen insight and kind reply Wanda. I liked your last stand on the decibel/band noise ordinance proposed. I hope your mom get's better soon too.

[Lisa O'Brien]

Wanda,

Sorry to hear about your mother, I hope she has a positive outcome.