Local towns that placed restrictions on where convicted sex offenders can live in order to keep them away from areas where children congregate may have to rescind those ordinances.
Spotswood and Sayreville are among the municipalities across the state that attempted to prohibit convicted sex offenders from living near schools and public parks. However, the New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled against similar ordinances in Galloway and Cherry Hill, and its decision impacts similar ordinances throughout the state.
The Appellate Division ruled last year that Galloway and Cherry Hill could not impose restrictions on where convicted sex offenders could live, and Megan’s Law is now the only law that may deal with them. The state’s highest court upheld that decision earlier this month.
Convicted sex offenders must still follow Megan’s Law guidelines by registering with law enforcement agencies when they move into the community.
State Sen. Bill Baroni (R-Mercer and Middlesex) opposes the decision to invalidate the local ordinances. He said in a statement that it is wrong to tell local municipalities that they do not have the power to protect children, and the ruling now prevents towns from acting to keep young people from predators.
“This ruling further demonstrates how out of touch the Supreme Court is with the needs of families in New Jersey,” Baroni said. “The Legislature needs to act immediately to allow towns to implement commonsense measures to protect children from sexual predators.”
Sayreville Mayor Kennedy O’Brien said the governing body will discuss its options, since it can choose to rescind its ordinance or simply not enforce it.
“My first concern is the safety of all children,” O’Brien said. “I’m not happy with the state court’s decision. I don’t happen to agree with it, but I’m compelled to comply with it.” O’Brien said the borough has not had to enforce the ordinance since it was adopted in 2005. Sayreville’s ordinance originally restricted convicted sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of schools, school bus stops, child care facilities or parks, but it was later changed to 2,500 feet.
“As a parent and a grandparent, I need to be comfortable and have a reasonable sense of protection, and the governing body said that’s a reasonable distance,” O’Brien said. “The governing body looked at it. We have a number of elementary schools in neighborhoods throughout our community.”
Old Bridge Mayor Jim Phillips said that while the township considered adopting its own version of the ordinance, it ultimately did not because officials felt the measure was unlikely to hold up in court. He said that while he appreciates the intent of such bans, zoning laws were not designed for the purpose of restricting locations where convicted sex offenders live, and he did not want the municipality to spend money, possibly in a costly legal battle, in the pursuit of a failing approach.
Phillips said that he would support legislation that would hold up in court and make residents safer in their neighborhoods, since a convicted sex offender may repeat the act.
Spotswood Council President Curtis Stollen said the governing body would discuss whether to rescind the ordinance. He said he understands the importance of balancing the rights of the convicted sex offender with the need to protect the community, but he does not want the same crime to be committed again.
“We had a case where we actually had an offender living near a park, and the residents were pretty upset and they had kids,” Stollen said. “When you see a real-life situation where this type of ordinance would have an effect and improve the quality of life over there, it’s a shame that you can’t enforce something like that.”
This is a complicated issue that is going to require legal expertise in order to be addressed, Stollen said. He would like to see a law drafted that is a compromise between the two sides, so that municipalities can enforce residency restrictions on convicted sex offenders.
“I don’t know what the remedy could be, but it is a difficult situation and it would be nice to be able to offer some sort of protection to your citizens living near the parks where they are playing,” Stollen said.
Spotswood Mayor Thomas W. Barlow said the borough has not enforced its ordinance since the governing body adopted it in 2006, since it was challenged in court in Galloway and Cherry Hill.
“My inclination at this point is to leave it on the books and not enforce it. That way if legislators pass a law, we would not have to reintroduce,” Barlow said. “… It’s unfortunate that [state Supreme Court judges] are taking away from local municipal officials the ability to protect young people in the community. I am disappointed, but we’ll abide by it.”