Communities are rushing to limit sexual offenders

A proposal to prohibit Level 2 and 3 sex offenders from living near schools could eventually drive them to other communities where they are less regulated.

That was one of the possibilities that the City Council’s Legislative and Legal Committee discussed Tuesday night with City Solicitor Donald Rider, Police Chief Mark F. Leonard and Detective Martha Shea, who is in charge of sex offender registration in the city.

The committee is charged with studying the proposal submitted by Councilor-at-Large Steven Levy and then making a recommendation to the full council, probably at its Aug. 28 meeting. The proposal would prohibit Level 2 and 3 sex offenders whose victims were minors from entering or loitering within 500 feet and from living within 2,500 feet of “any school, (school bus stop), day care center, park, playground, or other private or public recreational facility where children regularly congregate.”

According to the state Sex Offender Registry’s Web site, there are 49 Level 2 and 3 sex offenders residing or working in Marlboro. Level 2 and 3 sex offenders are considered to be at moderate to high risk of reoffending.

Mr. Levy said there are 17 states with statewide laws that restrict where sex offenders can reside or loiter. In Massachusetts, Chelsea and Revere have already adopted similar ordinances. Fitchburg, Worcester and Taunton are considering restrictions.

Chief Leonard said while Level 2 and 3 offenders are required to register with the police departments where they live and work, others come to Marlboro to do jobs with contractors located outside of the city.

In another scenario, there are instances when a sex offender is released from prison and lives in the city for months before they are classified by the state.

The chief said he is also concerned that the proposal could drive sex offenders underground and deter them from registering with local police departments.

The proposal, however, is a step in the right direction, Mr. Leonard said. He said the sooner the city can adopt an ordinance the better. As communities begin to restrict sex offenders, they push them to communities that don’t have restrictions.

“Our hands are almost forced. We don’t want to be flooded with everyone else’s sex offenders,” he said.

The chief said initially, enforcement of the ordinance would mean additional work for his department, but eventually it would mean less work. With the restrictions of the ordinance, putting nearly one-mile barriers around schools, there would virtually be no place in the city where Level 2 and 3 sex offenders would be allowed to live, the chief said.

Mr. Rider suggested lengthening the time that a Level 2 and 3 sex offender would be given to relocate. The proposal currently puts that time at 30 days. Each day beyond the 30 days would constitute a subsequent violation.

A first offense would bring a noncriminal fine of $250. A subsequent offense would include a $500 fine and notification to the sex offender’s probation or parole officer, landlord and the Sex Offender Registry Board that the person is in violation of a city ordinance. Chief Leonard said he would like to tie the ordinance to a current ordinance that allows for arrests for civil offenses, such as public drunkenness.

The proposal also provides a $100 fine to any property owner who rents a residence within a protected area to a Level 2 or 3 sex offender. Ward 3 Councilor Scott Schafer, who is chairman of the Legislative and Legal Committee, said he does not want to burden property owners with having to find out whether they are renting or selling to a Level 2 or 3 sex offender.

Exceptions to the ordinance include situations in which a sex offender purchases a home near one of the protected facilities before the ordinance goes into effect. Those with leases in the prohibited areas prior to the ordinance would have to move when they expire. A sex offender would not have to move if a school or other protected facility moved to the location after the offender established permanent residency.

Another exemption is for sex offenders who were minors when they were convicted and have not been convicted as an adult. The committee is looking at possibly changing that.