.

Town Council Set to Repeal Child Safety Zone Ordinance

Stop the Montville Town Council from repealing the Child Safety Zone ordinance.


Some of the language below may offend some readers; it is verbatim from the  Connecticut Sex Offender Registry.

  • The female victim, age unknown, was walking in her neighborhood when she was approached from behind, stripped naked, raped and left in a side yard. The offender had a gun to the victim's back. A 2005 DNA sample hit was confirmed for the offender and he was arrested in 2006.
  • Offender approached to [two] male juveniles in a public area and masturbated himself while making sexual comments. Offender has a lengthy history of public indecency and risk of injury charges.
  • Offender was involved with sexual touching of a 15 year old female. Offender would hold victim down and kiss her, touch her vaginal area and hold her hand to his penis when he had no pants on. Victim was known to offender.

 

These three statements are taken directly from the Connecticut Sex Offender Registry describing crimes committed by some of the residents of the January House sex offender facility in Montville. Remember, there are 21 stories more like these three.

Tonight, WEDNESDAY FEB. 13, the Montville Town Council has on its agenda a resolution to repeal the Child Safety Ordinance.

WHY?

This ordinance is valid, has not been threatened by the ACLU, and is relevant to the Town because of this facility.

Why is the Council taking action to stop protecting our children?

If you cannot attend the public hearing to stop the Council from repealing this ordinance, please contact them at the below phone numbers or email addresses to let them know you want your child protected!

 

Mayor Ronald K. McDaniel
Tel:  860.848.3030  Ext. 301
Fax: 860.848.4534

Candy Buebendorf -Chairperson

(860) 334-9827

cbuebendorf@yahoo.com

Billy Caron -Vice Chairperson

(860) 608-0969

billyclb@aol.com

Joseph W. Jaskiewicz

(860) 625-7583

 

Dana McFee

(860) 917-6985

deemc46@aol.com

Laura Tanner

(860) 326-6141

lautanner@yahoo.com

Rosetta Jones

(860) 859-0677

rej61@sbcglobal.com

Chuck Longton

(860) 608-1405

chuck2200@gmail.com

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Terry Loftis February 11, 2013 at 04:33 PM
To the above councilors and Mayor, why would anyone in their right mind vote in favor of the resolution to remove the ordinance?
Sam Rogers February 11, 2013 at 05:31 PM
Why would anyone in their right mind vote in favor of the resolution? For starters, because the State Legislature has not specificaly authorized municipalities to enact such laws ("no enabling legislation"), and also because the Legislature has "occupied the field" with its own comprehensive scheme for dealing with such individuals, thus "pre-empting" municipal action in any case. Constitutional implications are thus secondary. As for Ms. Jacobson's contention that this ordinance is valid, I'd be interested to know how she arrived at that legal conclusion in light of the foregoing. It's a well-established principal of Connecticut municipal law that cities and towns can only take such actions as the State has allowed them to.
jane February 11, 2013 at 05:41 PM
This is the knee jerk answer to the people's wish that the senior safety zone be scrapped. The ACLU has not publicly said they would go after the ordinance. Why not leave it alone until if, and when, they do.
Donna Jacobson February 11, 2013 at 05:49 PM
For more information about the validity of Child Safety Zones, see the following: State of Connecticut OLR Research Report on Child Safety Zones: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/rpt/2009-R-0277.htm Newtown, CT Child Safety Zone: http://ecode360.com/15280513 Danbury, CT Child Protection Zone: http://www.ci.danbury.ct.us/content/21011/23690/12468.aspx Brookfield, CT Child Safety Zone: http://ecode360.com/14762853
Terry Loftis February 11, 2013 at 06:54 PM
Sam Rogers, it is obvious that you are uniformed since their several towns in Connecticut that have such an ordinance. As a matter of fact some go back to 2006. Also Mr. Rogers, it requires a public hearing, that Chairwomen Buebendorf did not schedule in order to repeal an ordinance.
Sam Rogers February 11, 2013 at 07:56 PM
Ms. Jacobson, Of the four documents you've provided links to, three are simply examples of ordinances passed by other towns and thus do not constitute "more information about the validity" of such ordinances. The ORL report speaks for itself, in that it does not cite even one example of such an ordinance being upheld by a Connecticut court. Presumably, the Town Council has had benefit of actual legal advice.
Sam Rogers February 12, 2013 at 12:26 AM
Mr. Loftis, The fact that several Connecticut towns passed such ordinances without specific legislative authority to do so does not render them legally sufficient. The mere act of passing a law is not what determines its validity. Courts often overturn illegal laws, however well-intended they may have been. I don't understand the point of your second sentence, or how it helps your wife's article. Her article plainly indicates that a public hearing has been scheduled upon the proposed repeal.
Donna Jacobson February 12, 2013 at 03:57 AM
I assumed the the current Town Council Chairperson scheduled a public hearing for the repeal of the ordinance as per the charter. I was mistaken, the Chairperson did not follow proper procedure. Hopefully, a public hearing will be scheduled prior to the Council voting to repeal the ordinance.
jane February 12, 2013 at 11:05 AM
Sam, I am questioning to myself why you are so adamnet that this ordinance should be reversed. No one is threatening to take Montville to court, the State has made no attemt to get rid of these ordinances, yet you seem pretty sure that it should be reversed. I wonder why.
Tage Wright February 12, 2013 at 01:49 PM
I am not a lawyer or a pollitician but I am a father and grandfather. Perhaps the ordinance isn't legally sufficient or what ever your point is but it is an effort to protect those who can not protect themselves. If we spent as much time trying to put something there that does meet required standards before we repeal something that is not yet opposed we might just protect the kids. I give credit to you Sam for posting your comments using your name. You have the courage of your convictions. You just seem to be on the wrong side of the playground on this one.
Terry Loftis February 12, 2013 at 02:01 PM
Tage well said!
Sam Rogers February 12, 2013 at 04:49 PM
Jane, "the State" - that is to say, the Legislature (as distinct from the courts when a matter is brought to them) has no direct mechanism to "get rid of" individual town ordinances. It could, in theory, pass a law prohibiting all ordinances such as this one, but it should be fairly obvious that that would be politically untenable. If enough towns were to feel strongly enough that such ordinances are necessary, they could always ask their state Legislative members to pass enabling legislation authorizing them, as is apparently underway now in connection with the "senior-sex-free-zone" counterpart issue.
Sam Rogers February 12, 2013 at 05:54 PM
Tage, if you honestly believe that the possibility of a $99 fine is going to dissuade a monster of the likes described by Ms. Jacobson from doing the unspeakable, then nothing in this discussion is going to convince you otherwise. But in my view, such a "threat" of wrist-slapping is nothing but "feel-good legislation," as was ably stated repeatedly by Councilman McFee in connection with the repealed "senior-sex-free-zone" counterpart ordinance. It would be a cruel joke to expect anyone to believe that such ordinances offer any real protection. Notwithstanding this reality, if the goal is indeed simply to make people feel safer, then why not pass any number of ordinances that impose trivial fines for committing what is already a felony (as is rape)? Montville could, for example, "outlaw" burglary within its borders, or establish murder-free zones. And by the way, when it comes to these sex offender ordinances, they're obviously aimed at convicted offenders who, upon release from prison, must register their addresses and be subject to monitoring. Isn't a greater danger posed by those of similar persuasion who are not yet known to the criminal justice system? Recognizing that, perhaps Montville should pass an ordinance outlawing all rapes, whether or not the perpetrator has a prior criminal conviction. The absurdity of this just underscores the fact that everything you fear - legitimately, as a father and grandfather - is already illegal.
Penny G February 12, 2013 at 07:12 PM
sam rogers should go tell the other towns, like newtown or danbury that their ordinacnes are no good.
Tage Wright February 12, 2013 at 07:35 PM
Sam, here is the deal, you need to take a step back. Here is what I was saying. 1. Don't repeal anything without something that makes sense to replace it. 2. Determine the goal you are attempting to reach 3. Draft a plan that will work 4. Put it in play. I will repeat here what I said in my blog "You Can't Fix Stupid" in the old west there wasn't very many horse thieves because they use to hang them. Sam, you figure out what I mean by that. I think Penny G could fill you in if you can't.
Sam Rogers February 12, 2013 at 08:27 PM
Penny, I distinctly recall that earlier in Montville's long journey down this road, Danbury's mayor announced that his town was taking no action to enforce its own ordinance, for similar reasons to those I've addressed. Whether it still remains on the books is another matter, but what's the point of a law that's never going to be enforced? Why don't you contact Danbury, and tell them how you think it should conduct itself?
Sam Rogers February 12, 2013 at 09:15 PM
Tage, With all due respect, if you feel that convicted sex offenders should be hanged following completion of their prison terms, then by all means you should propose such a law to your state senator or representative. Otherwise, I don't know what you mean, so you'll need to state it more explicitly. Meanwhile, as to the course of action you seem to be suggesting with regard to the situation in question: whether an ordinance "makes sense" to you, or to the members of the Town Council, is simply not the measure of its validity. I get the impression that you disagree with me on that, but where does it get you? In court, not very far, and that's really the issue. Do you want local laws that have actual legal effect, or not? If not, then be up front and admit that it's more important that they simply make you feel better, or safer.
Tage Wright February 12, 2013 at 10:00 PM
I didn't think that you would figure it out. Penny please help Sam he is having trouble with this.
Sam Rogers February 12, 2013 at 11:24 PM
Tage, I'm done here. You've obviously said all you have to say, and in your blog you refered me to, all you say is that everyone is stupid except yourself. No point in further dialogue, let alone talking in riddles. I'll just go back to the grown-up table.
Tage Wright February 13, 2013 at 03:13 AM
Sam, you really need to take some courses in comprehension. I encourage all of the readers of this blog to read "You Can't Fix Stupid" and let me know if Mr Rodgers is barking up the right tree. Protecting our children is number one in my book. I am not the sharpest pencil in the box but I learned a lot running the marathon of life for the last 64 years. If you spend all your effort arguing what you should do and in the process do nothing you have failed. Abraham Lincoln once said in a speech he gave in 1832 that half finished work generally proves to be labor lost. I guess with respect with child protection we are at the half done point. My thought is to finish the work so that the children won't be that labor lost. So Sam I don't think you are stupid, just ill informed. Respectfully submitted Tage N. Wright
Sam Rogers February 13, 2013 at 05:59 AM
Tage, since you insist: If accusing me of comprehesion problems is what you must do to validate your own ideas, then you've obviously not considered the alternative possibility that your ideas are objectively incomprehensible. The fact that your blogs plug your skill as an author but admit that you rely on self-publication is a red flag in support of the latter. You wish to protect children, but you argue in favor of an ordinance that offers nothing but false security. I have suggested that you start by seeking Legislative permission for towns to enact child protection ordinances, which is the path recognized by our legal system (as Democratic town council members and Councilwoman Jones recognized when they testified in Hartford last week in favor of legislation enabling towns to enact "senior sex free zones"). Your response is to believe even harder that the existing course is anything more than good effort after bad. Why not follow the lead of these council members, who have evidently had the benefit of legal advice? Personally, I think lumping additional punishment upon people who have already paid their debt to society is as socially abhorrent as the crimes of which we are speaking, and that the honest argument would be for life imprisonment for rapists in the first place. But if you still think it's better to have town ordinances outlawing what's already illegal, then I respectfully submit to you that I am not the one who is "ill informed."
Tage Wright February 13, 2013 at 06:20 AM
This is where a little comprehension would be nice. I am not arguing in favor of anything. I made a simple statement not to remove something until a better alternative was found. You seem to like big words. Perhaps you will understand this, I write fiction because that is what I like to do. I don't plug any sort of skills. I self publish because that is what I like to do to get my stories out there. If crafting Insults with big words is a talent needed to be at the "grown up table" I would rather sit with the kids. And in this case I would rather not be in Mister Rogers neighborhood. Submitted with all due respect Tage N. Wright
jane February 13, 2013 at 11:11 AM
Sam - the legislature has to bring tha laws, the courts go by the laws. That said, I'm still wondering why you seem to really want this ordinance reversed. Is there a kid you are not allowed to live by?
Terry Loftis February 13, 2013 at 01:20 PM
Tage, I believe that Sam Rogers, a pseudonym, is very political and loyal to his party. The current Democratic town council wanted a Senior Citizen ordinance similar to that of the child safety one. The ACLU informed us that they were watching that very closely based on it's constitutionally. Although you could make the same argument for the child ordinance, I don't think the ACLU would want to take on that argument. After all, it is a proven fact that Seniors are far less at risk from sexual attacks. Our Town Council feels upset by the actions of the ACLU and the oposition party.therefore, in their great wisdom, decided to get even and remove the child safety ordinance, since that was passed by the former Republican controlled council. You know stupid is stupid. For the record I am a lifelong Democrat my wife is a Republican and the former Town Council Chair.
Tage Wright February 13, 2013 at 01:57 PM
Thank you Terry. In all of the verbal sword fighting from Sam not once did he explain what he was really fighting for. If Sam Rodgers is not his real name then he is doing what many people do when their argument is weak, hiding. When I post a blog or a comment up goes my picture and anyone can see who I am. Then, I always remind myself in these type of encounters that I put on the uniform (Navy and Army) to protect the right of every American (even Sam) to be stupid. Thanks again, Very respectfully submitted, Tage N. Wright
Sam Rogers February 13, 2013 at 02:59 PM
Tage, I don't have a dog in this fight, at least as far as ordinances go. It should therefore come as no surprise to you that I "did not explain what I was really fighting for." As far as names go, I have no idea who "Tage Wright" really is, but that's not why your argument is weak; it's weak because it's simply wrong. You don't get a pass by admitting to be not very smart, proclaiming everyone else to be stupid, and then entering into an arena where there are very definite right and wrong answers without exhibiting the slightest evidence of research and evidence in support of your positions (as Ms. Jacobson has attempted to do here, to her credit). But really, "Tage," (whoever you really are), resorting finally to wrapping your opinions in military uniforms is pretty desperate. I know of no debate forum or adversarial institution in which "I was in the Army!" is the trump card for rescuing a losing argument. Nor is calling me names. Such tactics have quickly revealed that you confuse your right to have an opinion with your demand that it be taken seriously. Mr. Loftis can believe whatever he chooses to imagine. It certainly shows.
Tage Wright February 13, 2013 at 03:28 PM
Okay Sam, who I really am is out there for everyone to see. Google my name and stop acting stupid. When I stepped in to stop some pit bulls from eating a mailman he didn't ask who are you really. I am asking you, who are you really? What is your real name? If you have the courage to make comments have the courage to identify yourself. I have my cell number available on my blog spot(tagewright.blogspot.com). What is yours? My email address is tagewright@aol.com you can call me or contact me by phone. I don't hide behind my computer screen. When I use to box in the Navy I stood toe to toe with my opponent neither of us hid behind the referee. The only dog in this fight is the dog protecting the kids. If you know how to do that then do it and stop hiding where ever it is that you are hiding. Contact me and tell me who you are. Respect is earned not granted. Hey, we can do lunch, as long as it isn't too expensive!! I'd shake your hand if I could find it. Tage
Donna Jacobson February 13, 2013 at 04:50 PM
UPDATE: According to this evening's Town Council's agenda, item 16b under New Business will be to set a Public Hearing for the repealing of the Child Safety Zone ordinance. This Hearing will be held on March 11, 2013 at 6:30 PM at the Town Hall.
Tage Wright February 13, 2013 at 08:26 PM
I'm still waiting for Sam's call.
Tage Wright February 14, 2013 at 11:51 PM
Sam, are you out there? Hello

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something