Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

City Council contenders differ on sex offender ban

Some say they support it. Others worry about merely pushing the problem outside city limits. One flat-out dislikes the idea, though he'd vote for it.

By JANET ZINK, KEVIN GRAHAM and BILL COATS
Published January 23, 2007

TAMPA - The City Council's vote last week to take steps toward prohibiting some sex offenders from living within city limits was unanimous.

But the view among those campaigning to join the City Council is more mixed.

Some candidates on the ballot March 6 say they support the measure if it's constitutional - something council members asked the city attorney to research. Others expressed concern about whether such a law would be effective. And others rejected the idea outright.

If it's legal, do it

Council Chairwoman Gwen Miller, running for re-election in citywide District 1, and restaurant owner Rick Barcena, one of Miller's opponents, say they would support a ban if city attorneys determine it's legally defensible. The ban would target those who commit sex offenses against children and bar them from moving into the city.

That view is shared by District 5 candidates Lynette Judge, a school social worker, and Tom Scott, a former Hillsborough County commissioner.

"Anything that keeps sex offenders at a distance from children has to have some advantage," Scott said.

Lisa Tamargo, a corporate travel consultant facing Charlie Miranda in District 6, said if a ban is constitutional, she's all for it.

"They gave up their rights when they became sex offenders," she said. "We need to protect our kids."

Joseph Caetano and Frank Margarella, candidates for North Tampa's District 7 seat, said a ban is probably not constitutional. But if city attorneys say it would stand up, they would support it.

A moving target

Shawn Harrison, a City Council member who is running for the citywide District 2 seat, in November first raised the idea of expanding residency restrictions for sex offenders.

He suggested toughening a state law that bans some sex offenders and predators from living within 1,000 feet of schools, parks, playgrounds and day care centers by extending the ban to 2,500 feet.

When the council learned such a boundary would push sex offenders into just a few neighborhoods, members looked at expanding the boundaries further so offenders couldn't move into or within the city at all.

Harrison said the constitutionality of such a law is a big issue, but not the only one.

"I do have a concern about what the impact would be on the county and the other municipalities," he said.

Julie Jenkins, a District 1 candidate, also said the city shouldn't push the problem into the county.

"We all need to work together on this issue," she said.

District 1 candidate Randy Baron said banishment is not a good solution.

"Just banning them from the city doesn't mean they're not going to be in the city," he said. "Do we ban them from working in the city also?"

Like Baron, District 4 candidate Julie Brown and District 2 contender Mary Mulhern wonder how effective a ban would be.

Some say that overly stringent residency restrictions force sex offenders underground, making it difficult to monitor their whereabouts.

Consider treatment

Joe Redner, another District 1 contender, said he doubts such an ordinance would be constitutional, and even if it is, he doesn't like the idea.

"You can't regulate them out of existence," he said. If that's the goal, he said, it would be better to change sentencing guidelines so sex offenders and predators spend the rest of their lives imprisoned.

But if it came before him on the council, Redner said, he would vote for it and let the courts take it from there.

His reasoning: Politically it would be unwise to vote in a way that could be interpreted as being soft on child molesters.

"I'll play the silly little game with them, but I'll tell them why I'm doing it," said Redner, a strip-club owner.

[Last modified January 23, 2007, 06:23:54]