ACLU lawyer: Lynn ordinance ‘wrong’

LYNN – An attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union who filed a lawsuit challenging Lynn?s sex offender ordinance says the ordinance is “an easy political fix” that impedes, rather than helps, public safety.?What our experience with this type of ordinance has been is that it undermines public safety,” John Reinstein, senior legal counsel for the Mass. ACLU, said Thursday. “You don?t want recidivism, that?s the entire goal, and what homelessness and pulling people out of a stable environment does is increases their risk of [re-offending.]”In a lawsuit filed last week in Salem Superior Court, five unnamed Level 3 sex offenders challenged the city?s ordinance that prohibits them from residing in the city in close proximity to any school or park. The claim states the area prohibited by the ordinance, “extends to most of the geographic area of the city and to virtually all of its available housing.”Click to view a map of Level 3 sex offenders and where they live relative to Lynn’s parks and schools.Reinstein said that, under the ordinance, 95 percent of residential property in Lynn is off-limits to the sex offenders, and much of what remains is not available for purchase or rental.?When you get through drawing the line, there?s virtually nothing,” he said.The ordinance in question bars any Level 2 or Level 3 sex offender residing in Lynn from living within 1,000 feet of a school, park or other private or public recreational facilities. The Lynn ordinance is based on a Barnstable ordinance that was upheld in court, city attorney James Lamanna said, but Reinstein said that is not the case because the sex offender involved left town before going to court.?The [Barnstable] suit was never heard because the individual ultimately decided he wanted to move out. It was never a court matter,” he said.Ward 1 Councilor Wayne Lozzi said the ordinance didn?t intend to restrict a particular amount of the city from Level 2 and Level 3 offenders, and questioned Reinstein?s estimation.?I don?t believe it to be that great a number, and I don?t care,” he said. “We want to protect the children, and situationally it just happens to be [that much].”The city sent notices to 25 individuals in February that they were violating the ordinance, Lamanna said, and gave them the opportunity to prove they lived with an immediate family member, including a mother, father, child or spouse. About nine people produced evidence they met the exception and the rest were due to receive citations starting Thursday but, Lamanna said the city will hold off on enforcing the ordinance until after a hearing to discuss the suit, set for sometime in May.The lawsuit asserts that the residency restriction imposed by the ordinance puts the individuals under “significant hardship,” stating, “plaintiffs have no other alternative other than to leave the city, and most will become homeless.”The sex offenders involved in the suit, who are not named in the complaint, are between the ages of 47 and 68 and most live on social security benefits and food stamps. One lives in a homeless shelter and two are physically or mentally disabled, according to the complaint.But while the suit?s main purpose is to fight for the rights of Lynn?s Level 3 sex offenders to continue residing in their current homes, Reinstein said the real issue is much bigger.?It?s about [the sex offenders,], but it?s really about the ordinance,” he said. “Everyone who has looked at this issue has come away from it concluding that proximity or where people live has no relationship to recidivism.”City Council President Tim Phelan called the ordinance “common sense” during an interview with the Daily Item last week and said keeping sex offenders away from schools and parks was “the right thing to do.”But the ordinance “limits the ability of plaintiffs and the members of the class they represent to reside in the City of Lynn without regard to whether their place of residence poses an actual threat to children,” according