Papa (and daughter) have a brand new bag.
Ron Book and daughter Laura Book-Lim boogied on up from the bright lights of Miami-Dade to dish up a bit of baseless factoids at the invite of the elected officials of rural Polk County, Florida.
(...)
Book-Lim along with her father, lobbyist Ron Book, were invited by Commissioner Randy Wilkinson and spoke about the Polk County Sex Offender Ordinance. Book-Lim asked commissioners to consider adding "child safety zones" and loitering measures to the current ordinance, a measure that was recently added to the same ordinance in Miami-Dade.
Book-Lim said she also would like to see all sexual predators and offenders banned from all county parks. (Newschief.com, 2/4/2010).
Responsible for the frenzy of residency restrictions for those persons deemed sex offenders--restrictions that superceded state law of 1000 feet--it now appears the Books are lobbying for the next phase of state-wide municipality overreach: redefining loitering to actually mean exclusion.
The Florida state legislature is currently considering legislative proposals (S 1284 and H119) which would bring municipalities into compliance with restriction of residence within the individual communities and legally define loitering and prowling specific to child safety zones i.e., areas where children are known to gather.
As I pondered over at Miami-Blinks (1/22/10), such a legal definition would seemingly clarify that "those registered (could) now be permitted to utilize state parks, public boat launches and all and any community area as would any other Floridian."
As would any other taxpayer.
The Books have obviously picked up on that as well.
Ron Book, Chairman of the Miami-Dade Homeless Trust proved a powerful lobbyist for passage of residency restriction law at the state and municipality levels which resulted in an encampment of sex offenders living under Miami's Julia Tuttle Causeway. The span quite effectively underscored the homelessness consequence of restriction law and soon became recognized as a worldwide symbol of NIMBY exclusion.Mr. Book failed to mention his common sense conclusion rejects DOJ statistics that in the majority of cases, most victims knew the offender. The Books have lived the known offender nightmare through an unfortunate real life experience and yet, continue to lobby without citation of the following real-word stats:(...)
"It's common sense not to allow people who have showed the propensity to commit a sexual act against a child anywhere around children and we just can't have that," Book said. "We urge that you ban predators from all parks and protect the citizens and their children."
In 90% of the rapes of children less than 12 years old, the child knew the offender, according to police-recorded incident data.
Of concern to this blogger.
S 1284 cites (in regards to residence restrictions) that "...A county of municipality may, upon the recommendation of its chief law enforcement officer and upon a finding of public necessity, adopt an ordinance that increases the distance exclusion for the residence of a person subject to s. 794.065, s. 947.1405, or s. 948.30 up to a maximum distance of 1,750 feet."
Anticipating every sheriff in the state will declare such a recommendation to protect children, a grandfather clause ensuring the continued residence of those persons currently living and maintaining home within the maximum distance of 1,750 feet is recommended for S 1284 and H 1119 inclusion. As witnessed over the past several years, ex post facto law seemingly does not apply to those listed on the SO registry.
Law enforcement discretion with child safety zones is not distinguished in the legislative proposals and my thoughts are the Books have already eyeballed such in anticipation law enforcement would be granted such authority regarding child safety zones as stated above--if left unclarified--upon passage of the proposed law. Otherwise, explain the statement by Polk County Sheriff's Office Lt. Lloyd Stewart that he "...was happy with the ordinance, but would entertain changes to strengthen the ordinance, not dilute it."
County Attorney Michael Craig adds credence to my premise with his recommendation to the Polk County Commissioners:
"...if the board wants to create child safety zones, it should be written as a separate ordinance."
This Frog would suggest Mr. Craig is fully aware the passage of the proposed state law will immediately preempt a ban as suggested by the Books if linked to the current county sex offender ordinance.
S 1284 and H119 may define child safety zones (along with loitering and prowling) by proposed changes to the current state law but as written, does not prevent Florida cities and municipalities from further definition of the law specific to their home areas.
NIMBY (Not in My Back Yard) becomes NIMCSZ (Not in My Child Safety Zone).
It is the responsibility of the state legislature to ensure such potential exclusion is addressed as unlawful action by Florida municipalities as S 1284 and H119 head to committee.
As taxpayers, we and and designated family members support parks and recreational areas through tax dollars. We are currently excluded from enjoying these areas together as families through state and municipal ordinance. State legislators should be mindful those deemed sex offenders and their families are carefully monitoring the proposed changes in state law and encourage elected lawmakers to tighten the proposals specific to child safety zones to ensure municipality compliance and legally prevent such from further defining the law (if passed) to further exclude us from the use of what we continue to pay for, yet cannot access.
Otherwise, I foresee a class action suit on these very grounds.
Both Ron and Laura Book-Lim should be publicly admonished for their continuance to lobby for bad law based on dated research and no statistics. I would further suggest--if such actions continue--the resignation of Mr. Book as Chairman of the Miami-Dade Homeless Trust--be issued.
In light of the Julia Tuttle fiasco, how he remains in this leadership position is beyond this blogger.
It is absolutely time to undo the cruelty, the collateral damage and unintentional consequences of Florida's sex offender laws.
8 comments:
If investigated we'd find that Crowley is an OLD CHUM of these rat's asses. No doubt, laura out on a limb book lim was raped in a county park????
She's gone out in her hooker heels to see the homeless she created but off with daddy o she goes. This is a vety strange relationship for a father and daughter, isn't it???
Raises many questions.
If I were freshly married I know the first thing on MY mind would be sexual predators and where they live.
RON BOOK: NAZI.
RONG BOOK SPAWN: LIAR
Could someone explain a "HOMELESS TRUST" to me ???
WTF??
Let me explain "Taxation without representation" to you...
Of course the homeless and unemployed aren't tax payers, anyway...
Good one, sgtMom !! BUT, what is this creepy bastard purporting to do at his 'homeless trust??' He's at least the creepiest excuse for a father I have EVER seen. Had my child ever been molester'd (LOL southpark sorry.... but if you guys aren't watching them poke fun at all of this you should be.... many pointers !!!) I sure wouldn't be trotting my greatest treasure around the country with that hate and fear every day.
Oh unless maybe it was making me a GO ZILLIONAIRE !!!!!!!!!!!
Ron???? Mr. Book????
Is this what you and heidi-stomp-your-guts out with my hooker heels are up to??
But seriously now, S1284 and H119 have the potential to take Florida out of the dark ages and begin, and I do mean begin, the journey to effective, humane laws that actually do protect children.
These bills also have the potential to trade one set of horrible unintended circumstances for another.
As Sunny mentioned, it is imperative that grandfather clauses be included in any restriction.
Another thing that is greatly needed is a protection for SLA’s (shared living arrangements) be fostered and protected in these bills. There are several Mobile Home Parks that have become essentially SLA’s or perhaps transitional facilities that are greatly and urgently needed in Florida. This only makes good law enforcement and social science sense. Due to the highly contagious disease NIMBY, many tricks are being employed by citizens and city and county officials to get rid of these SLA’s by hook or by crook!
There should be protection in the law that no one can simply put up a park (even a park bench has been used) or a day care center to force closure of these vital places. Again, there have been studies done that have shown a decrease in re offense and a decrease in probation violations when registered offenders are living in an SLA. These two bills are the perfect for these protections to be put in place.
Sunny is also correct that the wording must be more specific when addressing the ability of the Chief Law Enforcement Officer to increase the restriction on finding of public necessity. In whose opinion would this finding be based? What exactly constitutes public necessity?
In my opinion, it would be a public necessity to put in jail everyone who publicly misquotes sex offender recidivism statistics for the purpose of sensationalism or inciting the public in order to get votes.
But then, that’s just my opinion.
These bills would also place greater hardships on those who are fresh out of prison and are on community control and/or probation. These men would have to have school bus stops included in the restrictions of where they can live. With the amount and the constant movement of school bus stops that make it pretty much impossible to find housing. It is when a registered offender first comes out of prison that he needs the most help and has the most difficulty. It’s not easy to find a place to live from inside prison. It’s not easy to pay rent or get a job when you have been in prison. It is a scary world out here with all the restrictions and the hatred and then to be made homeless on top of that….it’s almost as if we were setting these men up for failure and trying to create more victims.
When we told Legislators that residency restrictions made no sense and caused more harm than good, and the legislators saw this was true in that it makes no difference where a person sleeps at night when the kids are at home anyway, our intent was not to then have residency restrictions AND NO GO ZONES.
DUH how does it make one iota of sense to keep something that is not only worthless but also harmful and then take something that could be helpful (safety zones) and twist it into something that will just create more unintended consequences of harm?
In my opinion, it would be a public necessity to put in jail everyone who publicly misquotes sex offender recidivism statistics for the purpose of sensationalism or inciting the public in order to get votes.
But then, that’s just my opinion.
That's getting on the 'freedom of speech' slippery slope. It is OUR responsibility to correct the lies - or the responsibility of those, such as the DOJ (a government agency) who make the 'numbers' to correct them publicly.
They don't. It is the government agents the misuse and lie about those very stats.
The lie of just one woman, Norma Jean McCorvey resulted in the passage of Roe V. Wade and over 4 million abortions so far.
Whether or not you support abortion rights, that the right was based on a false rape lie is profound.
If truthful measures had been used there would not be the murders and protesting and under ground movement against it there is today.
Sex Offender laws MUST be based on truth and accurate information or ever more inappropriate and harmful laws will be passed and the problem made ever worse.
Any time you work around what they are giving out you lose. Demand what EXACTLY YOU WANT. NO RESTRICTIONS. They don't mind stashing people in trailer parks. Makes it easier to malign and manipulate and marginalize them Surrounded by REAL scum in some cases. I am loathe to refer to any human being as scum but lost for another term in some cases. NO RESTRICTIONS. Any time you give in to them and say ok that's a little better, you're agreeing that what they've done is acceptable. SgtMom brings up a good point. Another one is this: They're building paper. They're 'interpreting' over and over what was intended with these laws and THAT is a lie. NO RESTRICTIONS. NO CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT. If someone has not been violent they can walk among society. If they can't keep their hands off children they should have to stay away from them. Not schools. CHILDREN. You can live right next to a school and never be anywhere near a child. They're just building buffer zones where the meth'ers can pack their mules off to school. OH YES THEY ARE.
What we need is LEGAL REPRESENTATION.
What we need is the ACLU standing up for us. It's their damn job!!!!! Reguardless if they win or lose. Their organization is about upholding CIVIL RIGHTS!! So do your job ACLU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You need to see the next new law they are putting out. It's going to put a lot of RSO Parents back in jail or back in the system.
If the ACLU does not stand up for or WILL NOT stand up for us, then we need someone....any law office that can practice in Florida can help.
Click on my name to see the analysis of one of these new bills. This is HB-119.
Post a Comment