It appears that cities are taking drastic steps to protect their citizens from the 50% of parolees who will commit new crimes. Today, parole is practically meaningless and the public is not being protected because parolees are not receiving adequate supervision.
Coincidentally, during my first year on the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department, Desert Hot Springs was one of the areas that I patrolled.
CITY COUNCIL APPROVES ORDINANCE TO SANCTION PAROLEE RESIDENCES
By Leslie Andrews
Desert Local News
September 16, 2009
DESERT HOT SPRINGS, CA- On Tuesday, the City Council of Desert Hot Springs voted unanimously to regulate the residency of parolees throughout the city.
This would now mean that any property owner who rents to two or more parolees/probationers living together (who are not related by blood, marriage nor adoption). If the parolee owns the home, the law would not apply. Property owners who fall under these guidelines will now have to pay a $3900 conditional use permit.
Three other cities in California (Riverside, Fontana and Yucaipa) have similar ordinances in place. In terms of how many parolees actually reside in Desert Hot Springs, there are just as many as the city of Indio has, and more than what Palm Springs has, considering how Palm Springs is twice the size in square mileage.
One of the reasons why the city of Desert Hot Springs decided to adopt this ordinance is because statistically, 70% of parolees and probationers are likely to offend again. "We want to make ourselves less vulnerable to this," said Chief Pat Williams. "The nuts and bolts of this ordinance would limit the locations where parolees could live."
The Chief also stated that police respond to these residences as much as eight times per month, nearly 100 times per year. "I believe this will remedy the situation," Williams added. Plus, property owners are required to report weekly activities of the parolees and letting the city know how many are still living in their homes.
According to more guidelines, each home cannot house more than six parolees or probationers, and no bedroom can house more than two. Multiple family residences with less than 25 units can house no more than one per unit, and those with more than 25 can house no more than two per unit. The owner or an on-site manager must live on the premises.
When it comes to hotels, those with 14 rooms or less are limited to housing three parolees/probationers in a 28 day period. Larger hotels are limited to housing five.
The distance required for parolees/probationers to be living apart from one another was set at 1,320 feet and must not be within 660 feet away from any school, child care facility, park or church, as was previously reported. Also, there is a one year grace period to allow property owners to comply.
Hank Hohenstein, a former city councilman, stated that the city council should table this item for at least a month. "We need to take a good look at possible class action lawsuits," he mentioned.
The motion passed 5/0.
No comments:
Post a Comment