Texas developers creating sex offender-free neighborhood(background check)

[rainbow4321]

http://www.mysanantonio.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D8AHFLU80.html


The sales pitch for a planned subdivision promises safety: criminal background checks for homeowners and, guaranteed, no convicted sex offenders. It's a concept that might prove right for the times, said first-time developer Clayton Isom, one of three partners in a company that's creating Milwaukee Ridge on the outskirts of this West Texas city.

Isom and his two partners in I&S Investments, who are all in their early 20s, own 213 acres and plan to subdivide it for 665 houses. Relatives and other investors are backing the trio. The homes will range in price from $100,000 to $150,000.

The no-offender plan puts the initial responsibility on home builders, who will face financial repercussions if they even unknowingly sell to a convicted sex offender. Builders will run background checks on adults buying homes and juveniles expected to live in the homes.

<snip>

"If I'm a parent and I'm moving into this neighborhood, you've done nothing to protect my kids from the people most likely to victimize them," Burk said. "We pretend that there's this outside class of predator waiting to prey on our family. Most of the problem come from within."

[Walt Starr]

1. I really don't have a problem with this.

:shrug:

In fact, had something like this been happening in the area where I built, I would have probably been drawn to the development.

[rainbow4321]

2. False security

What about first offenders? Or the ones that live just outside the perimeter of these neighbhorhoods (or are just driving thru the neighborhood)? IMHO, it is a false, misleading way to promote their neighborhoods--taking advantage of the recent child assaults/kidnappings, etc...

[daleo]

7. First offenders, or just someone who hasn't been caught yet.

It's not like people get caught the first time they offend. I think research shows that sexual offenders generally have committed a number of crimes before being caught for the first time. So, this may in fact lull residents into a false sense of security.

Besides that, I think this just panders to paranoia.

[Gormy Cuss]

11. Yeah, might as well hang out a "Welcome, Sex Offenders" sign n/t

[daleo]

16. Is every neighborhood that doesn't do this welcoming sex offenders?

Because that is the implication of your statement.

By your reasoning, I suppose the development in the story must also be welcoming all offenders other than sex offenders since they didn't explicitly ban them.

[Gormy Cuss]

23. the implication of my statement? Huh?

Sorry, I don't see how you got that from my post but let me explain. It was a reply to your post that it would provide a false sense of security, and easier pickings of the yet-to-be-convicted sex offenders. It's similar to why child molesters sometimes have positions of trust dealing with kids.
So, if you have a whole development of people who believe all the neighbors aren't rapists or child molesters, they may not be as cautious as they would be in other communities. That is my reasoning. Is that how you understood it?

[daleo]

26. Sorry, I think I misinterpreted your intent.

I thought you were saying that by disagreeing with the notion of a restrictive covenant like this, I was somehow saying that I was "welcoming sex offenders to the neighborhood". I gather you were agreeing that one problem with the idea was that it encourages a false sense of security. My mistake. :toast:

Another problem with the idea is that it encourages people to think only new gated communities can be safe. Besides a false sense of security, this kind of thinking leads to urban sprawl and segregation by income (and the other negative consequences that go along with that).

[Gormy Cuss]

28. Believe me, we're on the same page

Gated communities, ugh. Don't get me started.
:toast: back at ya.

[Eloriel]

37. GOOD point -- actually, many NEVER get reported, let alone

caught, arrested, tried and convicted. Many are fathers/grandfathers/stepfathers/uncles/mom's boyfriends, with no one around to file any charges, and no one who does or would believe the child if s/he spoke up.

[notadmblnd]

48. Or the ones that haven't been caught and convicted yet?

nt

[tavalon]

60. That was my immediate thought

Boy, we Americans will go in for anything that promises absolute security even though it's an illusion. I'm reminded of a quote by a kinda famous guy from back in the 1700s:

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin

[SusanF_CA]

75. And

what about people that were convicted of statutory rape (he is 19 and she is 16)? If this is something that happened 15 or 20 years ago and this guy has led a good (honest) life why shouldn't he be allowed to live somewhere. If the 'debt' has been paid and there has been no re-offending, you need to let the folks live. Now, on the other had it is someone who has molested/abused younger children I feel differently. For me, it depends on the extent of the crime.

[mike_c]

8. I have a HUGE problem with it....

This has GOT to violate federal anti-housing discrimination laws! Why should ANYONE be denied housing because of a crime they have already done their time for? If the criminal justice system does not deal with some offenses effectively (simply writing that phrase was an exercise in surrealism) then THAT needs to be addressed, but extending the punishment of offenders indefinitely through "shunning" or other denial of access to social services is HARDLY going to improve matters. :mad:

[Walt Starr]

18. Quite frankly, I support the DP for baby rapers

and life with no possibility for parole for sex offenders.

[Occulus]

54. peeing on a tree trunk gets you on some sex offender registries n/t

[Walt Starr]

19. Sex offenders aren't a protected class

Your argument about federal fair housing laws doesn't hold water. Sex offenders aren't a protected class.

[mike_c]

22. ok, so you believe that after an offender has done their time...

...their punishiment should continue indefinitely by other means? I don't buy that argument, and I believe that was one of the issues the framers of the constitution tried to address with the cruel and unusual punishment clause.

[Walt Starr]

24. ABSOLUTELY!

In fact, I don't believe a sex offender should ever get out of prison.

If you are so in love with sex offendders, I suggest you start a sex offender colony.

If one moved in next door to me, I would make their life a living hell by plastering the neighborhood with fliers and keeping a light shined on their despicable existance.

Quite frankly, I don't think the framers of the constitution would have considered hanging to be either cruel or unusual for a rapist.

[mike_c]

27. wow, Walt-- I'm a VICTIM, and I'm not as angry about it as you...

...seem to be. Please understand, I'm not flaming you-- and I agree that hanging is not necessarily an unconstitutional response to some sexual crimes. But I ADAMANTLY believe that once any offender's sentence has been served-- whether for a sexual offense or otherwise-- society's side of the debt comes due. In order to avoid being overly cruel ALL punishment must be finite.

[Walt Starr]

29. I was a victim as a child

and am adamant in my position on the issue.

[mike_c]

31. odd that this parallel thread should be running at the same time....

Here's what I posted on that topic in another thread not 10 minutes ago. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=3393903&mesg_id=3394171

Best,
Mike C.

[Eloriel]

38. Then we have to have much, MUCH stiffer (longer) sentences -

like Life, without parole.

Because the facts about this "crime" are that the recidivism rates are astronomical AND it's rare for perps to limit their harm to one child AND they so often go unreported, and even if reported the perps (if strangers) are rarely caught, tried, convicted. Even among not strangers (family and friends), the conviction rate is very, very low.

In short, these people almost always have MULTIPLE victims and almost always go on to sin again just as soon as they can.

WE HAVE TO PROTECT OUR CHILDREN AND STOP THE CYCLE OF ABUSE because today's perps were the child victims of yesteryear. Pediophils are made not born.

And we want to try to stop making them, which means we have to interrupt the vicious cycle and intervene.

[mike_c]

43. I do agree with you on that point, Eloriel....

If the only effective response is lifetime incarceration AND if we agree as a society that breaking the social compact against sexual crime is sufficiently egregious enough to warrant it (and i don't mean to suggest that it's not!), then that's wholly appropriate. It's the scarlet letter and social shunning part that I'm opposed to-- and not just for sexual crimes, but for all offenders who've had their punishment and want to move on to better lives. I'm not being Polyanna about that-- but many ex-felons do want to put their offenses behind them, and I think we should give them the benefit of the doubt-- the presumption of future innocence-- if we ever want them to be successful. I'm arguing against putting further impediments in the way of rehabilitation-- like denying housing, as in the OP. On the other hand, harsh penalties are justified for terrible crimes, but even the harshest penalties must be finite in order to be fair.

[uncle ray]

45. you seem to be assuming that "sex offender" equals "child rapist"

there id a difference between a child molestor and a teenager who got busted because he knocked up his girlfriend. "sex offender" is a borad term that covers all sexual crimes.

[MissB]

47. Walt

Perhaps a little education is in order. :shrug: It isn't unreasonable to hold a position that once someone has served their sentence they'd be able to go out in the community and live a productive life.

Except when it comes to sex offenders.

I see this argument go round and round on various message boards. What I think a lot of people miss is that the recidivism rate for sex offenders is extremely high. Mostly, I think that people just don't know how often sex offenders tend to reoffend.

[Occulus]

55. Stop equating sex offender with baby raper. n/t

[tavalon]

61. Slippery slope that one

In many a country, dissenters aren't a protected class. Heck, here in America, with the way we are going, dissenters will no longer be a protected class either. And, as I said before:


They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin

[ecstatic]

72. Can a rapist really be reformed though?

I don't think rapists, pedophiles, or serial killers can be reformed. Do you?

[Eloriel]

34. I do. It's just marketing, Walt. Just another way to USE people --

in this case, people who are justifiably afraid for their children.

Further, think how invasive for everyone else who might to live in that development for other reasons (how the houses are made or designed, location, etc.).

I think you know MY position on most issues involving child abuse and child sexual abuse (and domestic violence and all violence against women) -- AND the perps, but this hurts my heart.

[bennywhale]

39. Hooray, poor people get dumped with the shit of society

while those who can afford to live in such developments can gate out the nasty nasty world.

[merwin]

49. You're all for segregation, huh? Next thing you know, seperate bathrooms.

Don't want them sex offenders to be peeing next to you.

[Walt Starr]

73. So you think sex offenders should be a protected class?

:wtf:

Sorry, there is no cure for them. Lock 'em up forever.

[Occulus]

53. Assume it becomes like this everywhere.

Where would you have offenders ten years out from their sentences live, who have NOT reoffended in that time?

I'll not start another flamefest, but... how far are you comfortable with this being taken?

[Walt Starr]

74. I'm comfortable with this being taken up to life imprisonment for

predatory sex offenders and the death penalty if it involves a child.

[wakeme2008]

3. This is BS and I hope they have lots of Insurance

IMHO,,, non attorney me, this give the new home owners only FALSE security at best and again, non-attorney me, thinks it opens up these owners to lawsuits if any thing happens to a child by a company "vetted" home owner.......

[Eloriel]

40. Ooo, ANOTHER very good point. n/t

[Rebellious Republican]

4. That ought to piss a lot of GOP politicians, where will they live?

:evilgrin:

[Enraged_Ape]

9. That was my first thought

An all-Dem neighborhood. Count me in!!!

[Behind the Aegis]

5. Absurd

This nothing more than drivel for the uneducated. Most sex offenders strike within their own families. This makes it sound like be a haven, free from sexual crimes, and that is very misleading. Who will be next?

[rainbow4321]

15. Their memo on how they will enforce it

Fenced in community, parks and pools not open to the general population....Ok...so when the Jones family has Uncle Johnny/Aunt Jane over for a weekend and this same uncle/aunt commits a sex crime to a child in the community at the "fenced in pool/park", is the family booted out of the community and held responsible for said crime?

http://tinyurl.com/8rv6g

•How will we ensure homebuilders will properly conduct a registered sex offender background check, which is public knowledge, of potential homebuyers?
•How will we ensure a homebuyer will not purchase a home prior to committing an offense, resulting in he/she becoming a registered convicted sex offender?
•How will we ensure a homeowner will not sell his/her house to a registered convicted sex offender?

After extensive consideration by our lawyer and ourselves, we developed inclusive answers to the above posed questions. In all three situations, I&S Investments will obtain the legal right to purchase the home in Milwaukee Ridge for 85% of the lesser of appraised or market value by incorporating a policy in the deed restrictions, which will be agreed upon by a potential homebuyer at the time of closing. Additionally, in each situation the builder, potential homeowner sex offender, and original homeowner, respectively, will be legally bound to cover all closing costs in the resulting transaction.


The potential homebuyers of the Milwaukee Ridge subdivision will all partake in a required homeowner’s association, which will protect and preserve the value of the privately and commonly used property. By implementing this entity, the common amenities in the neighborhood, i.e. park, swimming pool, sports areas, pond, will become private areas, inaccessible to the general public. Additionally, the inclusion of these areas by a perimeter privacy fence, will serve as a safe environment for all residents to enjoy themselves. The neighborhood association will also serve as the eyes and ears for I&S Investments in relation to the
‘sex offender-free’ policy, and we will depend on it to report any infraction of the policy.




edited to make link work correctly

[tavalon]

62. Hmmm

Did these folks vet this through a lawyer or two?

[SoCalDem]

6. The boy scout leader-pastor-coach who is a "family man"

will easily pass muster, if he has yet to be "caught". This is a false sense of security. The REAL answer is to mandate LONG sentences, and then release into mandatory group homes with supervision.

Pedophiles never "recover"..

[RaleighNCDUer]

20. "Pedophiles never "recover".."

That is another part of the myth that the RW pushes.

Pedophiles who serve their time and GET COUNSELING have no higher rate of recidivism than any other type of criminal.

They should receive intensive counseling both during their prison time and after their release. The first inescapably connects their behavior with their punishment, while the second provides a support system when they are back in the real world and are confronted with the type of temptations that they succumbed to in the first place -- it's easy to be 'cured' when there is no such temptation.

Of course, I'm talking about the more common variety -- child killers are too far gone and should never see the light of day again.

But they should still get psychiatric help.

Prison, alone, does nothing.

[SoCalDem]

21. Take it from someone with "first-hand" knowledge of a pedophile

The may "recover" many times, but the kids that get abused during the "relapses" are many also:(

Pedophiles crave the sexual contact with children.. plain and simple..People cannot rewire their brains..Counselling may teach them tricks to use when trying to resist, but the temptation NEVER goes away:(

[Eloriel]

41. Okay, let's see links. Preferrably a lot of them.

Because I've never seen ANY information that there is anything approaching a cure for pedophilia (aside from castration, chemical or otherwise, which I don't actually know much about -- including whether or not it actually works).

[RaleighNCDUer]

71. Here is a slew of information, some of which supports my post

and some which does not.

http://home.tiscali.nl/~ti137156/helping/references.htm

And this particular article is one of those in the above page.

http://home.tiscali.nl/~ti137156/helping/articles/myths_and_facts.htm

Most the references I found talk about an app. 11% recidivism for treated offenders, which sounds pretty low to me for something that has no 'cure'. Others have stats that reach much higher. Others claim that there is a continuum of offenders, from those who might have a single incident, then never repeat it to those who serially molest hundreds and for whom there is little chance of ever being safe in society.

I googled "pedophiles recidivism counseling" and read enough to know that most experts are in disagreement with most other experts, and that whatever your position is you will find someone to support it. One reference I found indicated that, at least in a relatively short term study, pedophiles who began counseling but did not finish it had half the recidivism rate of those who did finish the counseling. Bizarre as it seems, it does in a fashion support my contention that treatment needs to be ongoing -- just as AAs are never cured, but go to meetings for the rest of their lives, so might pedophiles never be cured, but can control their thinking through continual counseling, group therapy or whatever. They are most in danger of relapse when they 'complete' their therapy and think themselves cured.

It just goes to point out that it is an incredibly complicated pathology and one that is relatively new to study. I think a little less dogmatism is called for.

[elehhhhna]

10. Pedophiles who PLEA out don't report...false sense fersure.

[daleo]

12. The article does address some of the points brought up in the thread

"According to the most recent U.S. Department of Justice statistics available, from 2000, 34 percent of juveniles were victimized by family members. Acquaintances were responsible for 59 percent of sexual offenses against juveniles, the statistics show."

[sasquatch]

13. All right! A neighborhood free of religous fundamentalist, and repubs

:bounce:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

14. You know what I think they need in this development?

A Roman Catholic seminary.

I mean, the kids will have good role models, built-in babysitters, and wonderful young men who will show the kids how glorious it is to give it up for Jesus when no one's looking.

Morans.

[cap]

17. people wont report child abuse because they will lose their house

this is stupid... there are laws about not discriminating against people who have done their time.

[flaminbats]

25. ummm, have we forgotten the Bill of Rights?

Article V..No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Article IX..The enumeration of the Constitution, or certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

sorry..developers can deny ownership of property based on price, not based on race, religion, or crimes people have already been punished for. Are we now saying that if a convicted sex offender pays for something..he or she should be discriminated against in the free market?

[slackmaster]

44. Bill of Rights restricts powers of government, not of citizens

People do have the right to set rules on their own private property.

sorry..developers can deny ownership of property based on... ...crimes people have already been punished for.

Do you have anything to back that up, flaminbats? I'm playing Devil's Advocate here - I agree they shouldn't be able to do that, but am not at all sure they actually can't do that. Employers routinely decline to hire people who have felony records. Banks don't have to give equal treatment in employment to a person who has ever been convicted of embezzlement.

FYI I am somewhat (not strongly) opposed to sex offender registries. I have been a parent, and have mixed feelings about anything that might compromise the safety of children. I believe in general people who have served their sentences or have been pardoned should have ALL of their civil rights restored, including the right to vote and the right to own a gun. If someone can't be trusted to live in society and to enjoy all the benefits of liberty, they shouldn't be let out of jail.

[flaminbats]

76. corporations are not individuals,the bill of rights does not apply to them

if employers can decline to hire anyone who has once broke the law..what stops them from denying jobs to all people who are black, Muslim, or just politically active in the wrong union?

You or I can sell land to whoever we wish..or don't wish, at our own risk. But a corporation is only a public entity..bound by the law, not a person protected by constitutional rights. They exist to serve the public good, not to restrict the rights of citizens.

Regarding the safety of your children, laws exist to protect their rights..not to trash the rights of others. If someone breaks a law, they should pay the penalty. Those who pay the penalty should not be punished multiple times for a single crime, nor should they be judged as non-citizens under the law.

[slackmaster]

78. Declining to hire or sell to someone does not constitute punishment

Discrimination perhaps, but only the government can administer punishment. If a business violate an individual's civil rights it MIGHT be a crime or a tort, or not. The individual has recourse in the court system.

You or I can sell land to whoever we wish..or don't wish, at our own risk....

Correct. If we choose to discriminate against someone we risk getting sued or charged with a crime.

But a corporation is only a public entity..bound by the law, not a person protected by constitutional rights.

In many respects a corporation is a person under the law. Corporations can and do discriminate. As I mentioned earlier, a bank will not hire anyone who has been convicted of, or even fired for, embezzlement; and there isn't a damned thing the person who is thusly rejected can do about it. They could file a lawsuit but they'd be laughed ou tof court.

They exist to serve the public good, not to restrict the rights of citizens.

Eh? Corporations exist to serve the good of their owners and investors, and whatever other purposes are enumerated in the corporation's charter.

[flaminbats]

81. we can't use our rights to deny the rights of others..

Article IX..The enumeration of the Constitution, or certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

many of these issues regarding corporations have never been settled. I often hear Republicans argue that since Corporations do not have the rights of people, they should not be taxed like people. But taxing all forms of income is constitutional thanks to the XVI Amendment. Corporations can or do discriminate..but unlike people, corporations are not protected by the Bill of Rights. Our government has the Constitutional power to stop this, and so it should!! Our elected officials are not doing their duty, when allowing corporations to stamp on the rights of citizens.

If the purposes of a corporate charter are in conflict with the public good, why should these incumbent whores ever win our votes?

[DuaneBidoux]

30. How about a background check for burglary? Or manslaughter?

This is weird shit. If someone has served his/her service why is this particularly a wicked crime? Are there some kinds of studies that show sex offenders are more likely to be repeat offenders than any other kind of crime?

To me this just smacks of more shit where suddenly this prudish society tries to reign in sex and somehow make it inherently worse than violence. Why don't we just start screening for housing and employment for all kinds of criminals?

[saltpoint]

33. Is there a background check in real estate for people who have

gotten drunk and killed people DUI?

In sheer numbers, it seems to me that alcohol is a significant threat to innocent others, too. Is alcohol to be forbidden in this San Antonio community?

[meganmonkey]

32. hmmm...time for some

:popcorn:

[cap]

35. where should pedophiles live after the serve their sentence?

Apparently, wealth will be enough to keep them out of your neighborhood; but what about poor neighborhoods? Should the lack of money force them to be the dumping grounds?

If people are concerned about this, shouldnt we increase the budget for R&D on cures for pedophilia?

[pfitz59]

36. Guantanamo Bay....

I hear the weather is fine!

[cap]

42. Seriously, arent you hoping for a cure for these people?

I mean, I dont want people copping a plea bargain on criminal insanity. I want people to serve their time. But dont you want someone to figure out a combination of drugs/therapy/counseling to get people to stop the cycle?

[HockeyMom]

46. Doing it here on Long Island for Rental Complexes

Besides a credit check, they want to do a criminal background check for every person over the age of 18 living in the the apartment. PLUS they charge a $100 per person fee for it.

[gatlingforme]

50. THIS is rediculous. What is this world coming to?

what next? this is unconstitutional isn't it? I do not think it will stand. someone will challenge this and win.

I think the developer is making waves to sell houses to people dumb enough to think they will be safe.

Maybe we should have obese free development too, or how 'bout smoke free dev. as well.
I could go on and on. blah blah blah

[medeak]

51. LOL..marketing..it's the american way! n/t

[gatlingforme]

77. that is exactly what I thought. LOL

[ValentinoM]

52. Be careful of what we are calling a sex offender..

I would kill anyone that screwed with a kid.. However, we had a family in our community who has a 17 year old son that was convicted for having sex with his 16 year old girlfriend.. The mother hated the boy and when her daughter confessed having had sex with the kid 7 months older than her, the mother called the police.. He is going to be marked as a sex offender for life.. Baby with the bath water scenario.. sheesh

[cap]

56. no...he wont

a difference of 1 year at that age wont stick.

[ValentinoM]

57. The boy and family say he will..

I hope you are right.. I don't want this law to get watered down because of a legal discrepancy..

I have also heard that many parents use the courts as weapons by accusing the ex spouse of being a pervert with young children (most often, the father) which is a difficult accusation to overcome, especially if you are too poor to hire a good lawyer..

Thus he/she could be stamped with the most devastating scarlet letter..

[cap]

58. none of the laws are written for small differences in ages

between teens. A 17 year old and a 5 year old, yes.

The parents are loony. The boy just needs to state his age and the girl's age.

[truthisfreedom]

59. sigh. okay, what percentage of sex offender arrests are first-timers?

certainly there are a huge number of repeat offenders... we hear and read about it all the time. but they all have to get arrested a first time...

by accumulating these staticstics you can quickly calculate just exactly how protected you should feel by moving into a neighborhood like this. right?

[liberaliraqvet26]

63. can we start a

WINGNUT FREE NEIGHBORHOOD. No Hummers with "W'04" stickers on them.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

64. In other news...

Sex-offenders creating Texan-free neighborhood.

[meganmonkey]

65. ...

:spray:

[bleedingheart]

66. How Naive can people be?

many evil people have been intelligent enough to escape detection for many many years....hell i bet one of them moves into this neighborhood with his squeaky clean record because he thinks they may have their guard down....and what will the developer do then...refund those people their money???

how absurd...

[Bridget Burke]

67. The "West Texas city" referred to is Lubbock!

Some might say that concerned parents would move their kids to another town entirely.

Mostly, I agree with people who say that parents should NOT feel that they can stop looking out for their kids. And most cases of molestation happen within the family.

[zanne]

68. I hate child molesters. I hate housing discrimination.

I think there's an awful lot of rationalizing going on here. Sex offenders need effective treatment. Nothing like that exists right now, so we're suddenly advocating housing discrimination, even hanging? Am I on the right website? It sounds an awful lot like the website-that-has-no-name! People who advocate infinite punishment and hanging must have squeaky-clean lives that even the most thorough background check will not detect a character flaw. What if the next wave involves background checks for anti-war protestors? And don't pretend that the door won't be open for them to do that. I've accepted the fact that Neocons will try to "adjust" the constitution to suit their needs, but we're supposed to be better than that.

[FlaGranny]

69. ??? This confuses me.

This is nothing new at all. Most homeowner's associations I know of in my area do background checks before allowing someone to purchase property. My own association does that, and we went through it, just like everyone else who lives here. You submit an application to the homeowner's association and they run a background check on you. You even pay for the "privilege." They have the right to refuse any applicant if they don't pass the background check and I'm certain they would reject anyone with a child molestation background, even though no children live here. The entire board of directors decides whether you get to buy. Most neighborhoods are just neighborhoods without homeowner's associations and there are thousands, upon thousands of them.

Do I feel elite living in a neighborhood with a homeowner's association? Not when you consider I live in a mobile home park and paid $23,000 for my property. We're not a gaited community, either. Right across the highway we have a regular neighborhood and regularly, from that neighborhood, we have teens coming over to break into our homes to steal TV sets and VCRs, so we are no safer for having no criminals in our small community, but at least we don't have to be suspicious of our neighbors, ranging in age from 55 to 90 something.

My son and his family live directly across the street from a "child molester." This is an attractive married woman with a son of her own who plays with my grandson. She has been released from supervision for her "crime." I have no idea what her crime was, but I suspect it was sex with an under-aged teenaged boy that took place when she was in her late teens or early 20's (she's only about 30 now) - maybe a 16 or 17 year old. No one considers her dangerous; her neighbors all know about her record and she is included in neighborhood activities. A child molester is not always a child molester, if you know what I mean. Cases need to be decided on their own merit and not under a "blanket" child molester label.

[noonwitch]

70. It's not going to protect against the most likely perps

The residents' own relatives and friends. A divorced/widowed/single mother's boyfriend is the most likely perp. He likely also doesn't have a criminal record. Most child molesters have an in with the family one way or another. The media overhypes the cases like some of the recent ones in Florida, mostly because the kids were killed.

[slackmaster]

79. Actually the most likely perpetrators of child abuse are...

...People who have abused children in the past.

[geniph]

80. That should make it a safely Democratic precinct, then

keep all the pervos out, there sure as hell won't be any Repug legislators in the neighborhood! Keep them and their mule-screwing, horse-masturbating, wife-sodomizing, child-molesting asses OUT!