Quantcast
Channel: The Shawano Leader - News
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 5341

City allows sex offenders at Union St. facility

$
0
0
Company will have to meet tighter restrictions

Convicted sex offenders will be allowed to reside at a new temporary placement facility for recently released felons in Shawano, but only under tighter restrictions adopted Wednesday by the Shawano Common Council.

Milwaukee-based Matt Talbot Recovery Services has contracted with the state Department of Corrections to operate a six-bed facility at 118 S. Union St. The facility is slated to open in mid-October.

The city restricts convicted sex offenders from living within 1,500 feet of any facility where children are likely to congregate, including any facility used for or that supports a school for children, licensed day care center, library, park, recreational trail, playground or place of worship.

An exception to the rule kicks in if the convicted sex offender “has been placed in a temporary living center by the Department of Corrections under electronic monitoring and said person meets with the Sexual Predator Ordinance Committee as requested.”

The rule changes made Wednesday require sex offenders to be approved by the committee and will require the facility to have an on-site supervisor living at the residence.

Talbot had not been planning to have on-site supervision. Instead, residents would wear electronic monitoring units and would be checked on three times a day.

There was no representative from Talbot at the meeting, and it was not clear whether the change would affect the company’s plans.

City Attorney Tim Schmid said Talbot would have to comply with the new rules.

An option floated by Mayor Lorna Marquardt at a special council meeting last week that the city could simply do away with the exception and not allow sex offenders at the facility was not discussed by the council.

The city cannot keep the DOC from contracting with a vendor to operate a transitional living facility, as long as the location is not within 2,000 feet of another community-based residential facility, but there is no state statute requiring the city to make an exception to its sex offender residency rules for a DOC facility.

Prior to taking action, the council heard from a number of concerned neighbors and from DOC representatives who defended the facility.

Though the facility will house a variety of recently released felons, the presence of convicted sex offenders has brought the most attention and concern.

Among the neighbors was Sheriff Adam Bieber, who said the facility would have a widespread negative effect on the area.

“I hope the city does everything it possibly can to stop this,” he said.

Lynne Davis said the turnover at the facility — where residents will be place anywhere from 30 to 60 days, according to the DOC — would create a constant flow of new felons and offenders.

“My husband and I would not have purchased our house if we knew that was going to go in there,” she said.

Amber Shepard said there are a lot of unsupervised children in the neighborhood, and she directed her comments at DOC staff, criticizing them for thinking first of the needs of criminals.

“These people chose the life that they had. They chose to be a criminal,” she said. “They chose to do stuff to innocent people. These kids still are innocent and you’re taking that away from them.”

Shepard said she and other parents would be unlikely to let their children play outside without supervision.

Kurt Redetzke, a sex offender registration specialist with the DOC, said residency restrictions have a noble intent of protecting children, but often lead to sex offenders failing to register or providing false information.

“They go underground and then we don’t know where they are,” he said.

Nathan Olson, a DOC probation supervisor, said residency rules only create a false sense of security for the community.

The council voted 4-1 to allow the exception and the tighter restrictions. Alderman John Hoeffs abstained.

Council President Woody Davis cast the sole no vote.

“I could not in any good conscience vote for this particular ordinance,” he said. “I really think there has to be other places that are available, and I just think we have to look a little harder.”

Rate this article: 
Average: 5(2 votes)

Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 5341

Trending Articles



<script src="https://jsc.adskeeper.com/r/s/rssing.com.1596347.js" async> </script>