The City of Santa Ana may act to keep sex offenders out of our parks!
I got a press release today from the O.C. District Attorney’s office, announcing that the City of Laguna Hills has become the latest city to consider an ordinance banning registered sex offenders from their city parks.
The City of Huntington Beach also just passed a similar ordinance. “City Council members at their meeting Monday approved the ordinance in a 4-3 vote with council members Connie Boardman, Joe Shaw and Keith Bohr dissenting,” according to the O.C. Register.
I have written a few posts asking why the City of Santa Ana hasn’t considered a similar ordinance, given that we have over 200 registered sex offenders living in our city. This time I sent an email to the City Council and to SAPD Chief and Acting City Manager Paul Walters. Mayor Pro Tem Claudia Alvarez quickly responded:
Hi Art,
Thank you for your concern of the safety of our children. I addressed this sex offender issue I believe back in 2006 on an 85a item. My request was in response to Jessica’s law and it’s invitation to local government to create safety zones for our children. The ordinance passed, of course, and it now includes places like the Discovery Science Center, the Zoo and other places our children visit. It might not be a bad idea to pull the ordinance back up to add necessary new sites. I’ll ask the city manager to add it to the Dec 5th council meeting.
Thanks again,
Claudia C. Alvarez
Santa Ana Mayor Pro-Tem
I was of course thrilled at this response. We have had major problems at our local park, Santiago Park, with perverts congregating at night to hook up with each other. Walters previously conducted a sweep and arrested about a dozen of them, but they have since returned.
If these perverts are registered sex offenders, and chances are some of them are, then an ordinance like this will give our police a major tool to use against them.
Will politics trip up the effort to pass such an ordinance in Santa Ana? The Democrats on the HB City Council voted against their ordinance. “Councilwoman Connie Boardman wanted a rule passed that prohibited loitering in parks but would not discriminate against possible offenders who committed a crime in the past but have children of their own now.”
That is definitely something our City Council will have to consider – but given what just happened at Penn State I think it is obvious that we need to act to keep perverts out of our public parks
Tilly’s Life Center’s (TLC) recently raised over half a million dollars to support their youth…
On November 25, 2024, at approximately 1:46 PM, Fullerton Fire and Police personnel responded to…
OCFA fire crews responded to two significant vehicle accidents in Garden Grove last Friday, requiring…
On November 24th, 2024, at approximately 1:00 a.m. Newport Beach Fire Department units NE63, NT63,…
‼️UPDATE‼️ Earlier today, our robbery detectives arrested November 20, 2024, #WantedWednesday suspect Izaya Cuellar (35)…
Late Friday night, police officers responded to Balearic Park regarding a vehicle doing “donuts” on…
This website uses cookies.
View Comments
Would that be considered additional punishment after conviction for the same crime?
Is it double jeopardy?
The lesson of Penn State seems to be that we need to get respected people in power to take the illegal acts of other powerful respected people seriously enough to do whatever it takes to stop them. The lesson of Penn State is no more "boys will be boys."
That puts a burden on all of us, especially the most influential and powerful, not just "perverts." That's a lot more important than merely preventing sexual acts (which from your description may be lawful except for their location) in public parks.
The devil is in the details. Adult men having sex with each other in our city parks is not acceptable. Read the SAPD report I cited in one of my earlier posts. This has been going on for over 30 years. Men have been caught doing this 30 feet away from kids playing baseball at the park.
Why some Democrats want to allow this behavior is simply unfathomable.
The sheriff went on record stating she doesn't see any reason that would have her grant a waiver. She's right! What part of the Words Law ENFORCEMENT do you not understand? It would be remiss of her position to grant anyone a waiver to break a law. So, why would she give an exception to a registered sex offender? This was just smoke and mirrors used by the OCDA to get this bitter pill to go down the city and county's throat and they both into it hook line and sinker! To date now these ordinances have been proven unconstitutional and unlawful ,but who's children were put at risk? The registrant's child by not allowing their first line of protection (their parents) to be there for them. Kids often get hurt in parks. Thank God those children by chance didn't get hurt during the time these horrible, evil punitive measures were in place! Tony Rackauckas used the registrants as his whipping boy for votes to get re-elected. That is not an uncommon thing for politicians but to do so by putting their children at risk is beyond belief and itself should be criminal. TRUTH
[That puts a burden on all of us, especially the most influential and powerful, not just “perverts.”]..... Hmmmm
Human sexuality is perhaps most misunderstood activity in which humans are engaging thanks to religious and bolshevistic dogmatism.
What can I say that will matter? This subject is so polarizing. People can't see beyond red on this issue. Fellow citizens consider what you're doing by not looking at the opposing side! Remember these people have paid their debt to society and many are parents as well.
This ordinance Attacks their parental RIGHTS and SOVEREIGNTY.
I am a RSO that recently received a US Congressional award of recognition for community service and have given greatly to the community both personally and professionally, but with this ordinance I as a father can't go to the park with my children. My offense was a misdemeanor not involving a child over 12 years ago.
My son (age 11) saved a 4 year old boy from drowning a month ago in Irvine and received a metal from the Irvine Police Dept. I as a parent saved my older son's life twice. Once from choking and once from drowning (I was THERE ! ). There's more to this than the Constitutionality. An RSO parent is the first line of safety for a child especially in a public park. How can my parental RIGHTS and DUTIES be so easily violated? Exactly where are we?
I'm a US ARMY veteran of 16 years and help cancer patents, the homeless and even ran a "name your own price" for hair salon services in Lake Forest and in Newport for those struggling. All I do is trumped by my status, but the ones that I help it matters to them.
One hurt child is one to many, but if you look real close (and be honest!). They were UNATTENDED in one form or another. Now here's an ordinance that MANDATES parents not to ATTEND to their children (at least in parks)! Don't state, "hire someone or a family member!" No one is more attentive (or responsibly so) to child as the parent! If that boy (my son saved) was my son and you had this ordinance in place disallowing me as a parent to be there for my son? The county/city attorney can answer that question.
Children jump around fall in water and do stupid things (they're kids for Pete's Sake!) They get hurt! I just got my son's hand out of a cast 6 months ago! Are you sure it's wise to disallow any parent to be with their child? Really?
The look on the deputy's face that told me I WAS NOT allowed in the park with my son said it all. City parks under the Sheriff's jurisdiction are off limits as well including Lake Forest (why are we getting this ordinance?).
This should be something the OC Supervisors may want to re-address.
Be honest. The ordinance allows parents to apply for permission to visit parks, even if they are on the list. The ordinance is designed to keep perverts out of our parks. Why would anyone oppose that?
The sheriff went on record stating she doesn't see any reason that would have her grant a waiver. She's right! What part of the Words Law ENFORCEMENT do you not understand? It would be remiss of her position to grant anyone a waiver to break a law. So, why would she give an exception to a registered sex offender? This was just smoke and mirrors used by the OCDA to get this bitter pill to go down the city and county's throat and they both into it hook line and sinker! To date now these ordinances have been proven unconstitutional and unlawful ,but who's children were put at risk? The registrant's child by not allowing their first line of protection (their parents) to be there for them. Kids often get hurt in parks. Thank God those children by chance didn't get hurt during the time these horrible, evil punitive measures were in place! Tony Rackauckas used the registrants as his whipping boy for votes to get re-elected. That is not an uncommon thing for politicians but to do so by putting their children at risk is beyond belief and itself should be criminal. TRUTH
"allows parents to apply for permission to visit parks"
The courts will toss these ordinances if they go to court.
Heck that would be like having a ordinance demanding that the city councils and management staff be naked while doing city work. Transparency in local government, the residents have a right to see that nothing is hidden. Right?