Well....all the town supervisors wanted to be quoted in the papers during the special election between Kosiur and Amedore on how bad the legislation was. Now Susan Savage is giving them their opportunity to fix it.
These are the statistics from the census bureau.
City of Schenectady Pop.- 61,000 Total square miles- 11 mi. Pop. per square mile- 5699 Percentage under 18 years old- 24%
So that means if you take the % of children under 18 in Schenectady you come up with 1367 children per square mile.
Schenectady County Pop.- 150,000 Total sq. miles- 206 mi. % under 18 years old- 23.3%
So if you subtract the city's 11 miles from the counties 206 miles, you come up with 195 sq. miles. Now subtract the 61,000 people from the city of Schenectady from the county's 150,000 total you get 89,000 people left in the rest of the county. Divide the 89,000 people that reside outside the city of Schenectady by the 195 sq miles that represent the rest of the county's sq miles. You come up with 456 people per sq. mile in Schenectady County when you don't factor in the city of Schenectady. If you take the 23.3% that is under 18 years of age, you now come up with 106 children per sq. mile in the rest of Schenectady County.
That's 1367 kids per sq. mile in the Schenectady city limits. Opposed to the 106 children per square mile outside the city of Schenectady.
There is 13 times greater concentration of children than in the rest of the county. I don't know how recinding the Kosiur law makes the 14,000 children under the age of 18 in Schenectady's 11 square miles any safer? Or how the 2000 ft. "safe zones" make the 20,000 kids in the rest of the 195 square miles of Schenectady County less safe?
According to our research there was one registered sex offender living in Duanesburg, New York in early 2007. The ratio of number of residents in Duanesburg to the number of sex offenders is 6171 to 1. The number of registered sex offenders compared to the number of residents in this town is a lot smaller than the state average.
Duanesburg's Population density: 87 people per square mile
Estimated median household income in 2005: $63,300 (it was $58,463 in 2000) Duanesburg $63,300 New York: $49,480
Estimated median house/condo value in 2005: $141,700 (it was $103,900 in 2000) Duanesburg $141,700 New York: $258,900
According to our research there were 100 registered sex offenders living in Schenectady, New York in early 2007. The ratio of number of residents in Schenectady to the number of sex offenders is 613 to 1
Estimated median household income in 2005: $31,800 (it was $29,378 in 2000) Schenectady $31,800 New York: $49,480
Estimated median house/condo value in 2005: $97,100 (it was $71,200 in 2000) Schenectady $97,100 New York: $258,900
According to our research there were 4 registered sex offenders living in Niskayuna, New York in early 2007. The ratio of number of residents in Niskayuna to the number of sex offenders is 5356 to 1. The number of registered sex offenders compared to the number of residents in this town is a lot smaller than the state average.
Estimated median household income in 2005: $76,700 (it was $70,800 in 2000) Niskayuna $76,700 New York: $49,480
Estimated median house/condo value in 2005: $192,300 (it was $141,000 in 2000) Niskayuna $192,300 New York: $258,900
According to our research there were 2 registered sex offenders living in Scotia, New York in early 2007. The ratio of number of residents in Scotia to the number of sex offenders is 3975 to 1. The number of registered sex offenders compared to the number of residents in this village is smaller than the state average.
Estimated median household income in 2005: $45,500 (it was $42,028 in 2000) Scotia $45,500 New York: $49,480
Estimated median house/condo value in 2005: $112,400 (it was $82,400 in 2000) Scotia $112,400 New York: $258,900
According to our research there was one registered sex offender living in Duanesburg, New York in early 2007. The ratio of number of residents in Duanesburg to the number of sex offenders is 6171 to 1. The number of registered sex offenders compared to the number of residents in this town is a lot smaller than the state average.
Duanesburg's Population density: 87 people per square mile
Estimated median household income in 2005: $63,300 (it was $58,463 in 2000) Duanesburg $63,300 New York: $49,480
Estimated median house/condo value in 2005: $141,700 (it was $103,900 in 2000) Duanesburg $141,700 New York: $258,900
According to our research there were 100 registered sex offenders living in Schenectady, New York in early 2007. The ratio of number of residents in Schenectady to the number of sex offenders is 613 to 1
Estimated median household income in 2005: $31,800 (it was $29,378 in 2000) Schenectady $31,800 New York: $49,480
Estimated median house/condo value in 2005: $97,100 (it was $71,200 in 2000) Schenectady $97,100 New York: $258,900
Actually in early 2007 there were 3 registered sex offenders. One in Quaker Street, one on Western Turnpike, and one on Duanesburg Road. Upon review of the sex offender registry, I can't seem to find the one in Quaker Street. Remember Duanesburg comprises 6 zip codes. I'm also not so sure what median incomes or some of the other statistics have to do with the protection of ALL children. I don't know who you are, but perhaps you will be on the committee and provide me the opportunity to understand your point of view.
Actually in early 2007 there were 3 registered sex offenders. One in Quaker Street, one on Western Turnpike, and one on Duanesburg Road. Upon review of the sex offender registry, I can't seem to find the one in Quaker Street. Remember Duanesburg comprises 6 zip codes. I'm also not so sure what median incomes or some of the other statistics have to do with the protection of ALL children. I don't know who you are, but perhaps you will be on the committee and provide me the opportunity to understand your point of view.
Or, Rene, I'm sure that if Cicero's not sitting on the board, you would be MORE than open to hearing a concerned citizen's view towards what should be done. That is taking into consideration that I'm sure it would hold a little more weight for you if the concerned citizen actually lived within the area that you are representing. Each town / village / city will have their chance at representation, as well as other specific people, I'd have to check the list.
Cicero, I suggest you talk to whoever it is that represents you and let them know your feelings. I know that I stand behind whatever Mr. Tommasone brings to the board as Rotterdam's Supervisor and a person that I have talked to a few times about this subject.
My emphasis wasn't really the median househould income, I just cut and paste it with the median property value and the household income came with it. I was just trying to show the huge difference between property value in the city of Schenectady and the surrounding towns. It seem to jump about $20,000+ once you leave the city. If you take the median income and the property value of these towns that were complaining about the "Kosiur" law, the perception would be that a bunch of well to do white people not really addressing the problem, but making sure they don't have to deal with the problem of those people who live in $97,000 homes, and earn $31,000 a year.
The city of Schenectady has more sex offenders, and a higher population of people in 1 square mile than in the whole town of Duanesburg.
I can't wait to see what plan the town supervisors have to address the problem. I know,,,,,, rescind the law,,,,as to make sure these sex offenders don't come to their backyards.
The sex offenders would leave their $97K homes in Schenectady to buy a $141k home in Duanesburg, or $177k home in Princetown, or $137k home in Glenville.
Suzie really did a good job putting this one at the feet of the town supervisors. I hope the monday morning quarterbacks come up with better legislation than the one Kosiur presented. Especially town republicans. If not, county republicans could lose more seats. They definitely won't gain any seats away from sitting democrats. The city of Schenectady makes up 40% of the county's total population. This issue will be used as a political football again during county elections. And democrats might come out smelling like roses if the republicans don't come up with a better solution.
Due process is victim now Sex offender residency law is, in essence, punishment after fact BY EDWIN D. REILLY JR. For the Sunday Gazette
“The Constitution prohibits both the state and the national government from enacting either [an ex post facto law or a bill of attainder]. The clauses [that do so] refer to rather precise legal terms that had a meaning under English law at the time the Constitution was adopted. A bill of attainder is a legislative act that singles out one or more persons and imposes punishment on them without benefit of trial.” — William H. Rehnquist, “The Supreme Court”
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, . . . nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. . .” — Fifth Amendment, U.S. Constitution
You can see where I am going with t h i s . O n Thursday, Aug. 23, the Schenectady County Legislature repealed only one of two acts which, although intended to offer a certain degree of protection against repeat instances of child abuse, are of very dubious constitutionality. The one repealed certainly was; a person who has already established a legal residence cannot, ex post facto (after the fact), be forced to move. Astoundingly, there were two dissenting votes. The second act, intended now to affect only newly arriving Level 2 and 3 registered sexual offenders, those convicted of the most serious crimes, declares that such persons may not live closer than 2,000 feet (about 0.38 mile) to a school, park, public pool or any place where children congregate. Why anyone thinks that a perfectly legal eightminute walk to cover that distance from a legal residence would deter a determined pedophile is beyond me, although it is twice the distance that certain neighboring counties have adopted. But this will cause a certain degree of retaliatory mischief and hence cries out for uniform statewide action. ESSENCE OF DUE PROCESS Also on Aug. 23, our Legislature acted as if they could pass on to our county’s towns a right that I doubt they have themselves, namely, the ability to set a local distance limitation. Three thousand feet? A mile or two? Come now. But at least it set up a committee, including citizens, elected officials and experts, to study the matter further. Even our state must tread lightly on the Constitution, which frowns on deprivations of liberty without “due process.” Now, I am not an attorney or even a constitutional scholar like Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), who carries a copy with him at all times, probably a waterproof one that he can consult in aqueous environments. But the issues here are not ambiguous ones, like those the Supreme Court occasionally chooses to wrestle with. The hallowed document is crystal clear that only a duly authorized judge may, after a trial and conviction (or plea bargain) that is the essence of due process, pronounce a sentence that involves a deprivation of liberty. Examples would be jail time, house arrest, restriction of association or travel, or anything that deprives the convict of the right to come and go to any place of his or her choosing at any time. Even such judges get exactly one crack at it. They may not — years, months, or even days later — impose a harsher sentence, and no legislature may do so either. Here is where legislators must be very careful. As Rehnquist wrote, a bill of attainder (where “attainder” means “taintedness”) is an act of a legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some offense and punishing them without benefit of a trial. The Constitution forbids both the federal and state governments (and their subsidiaries, of course) to enact bills of attainder. So if a deprivation of liberty such as limiting where a person may live is indeed a “punishment,” then no legislature can issue a blanket edict imposing such; it would have to somehow file charges against registrants, one by one, and have them adjudicated. But the charge would have to be a new one, not the original one. Too late. Wrong authority, if indeed there is a right one. But, Shakespeare aside, some of my best friends are living lawyers, and they say “But Ed, you forget that there is a Supreme Courtsanctioned concept called “civil (rather than criminal) confinement,” and such deprivations of liberty are not considered “punishments.” DIFFICULT DILEMMAS “Holy Cow” (with due respect to the late Phil Rizzuto). How could that be? Has the Court ruled that black is white, that up is down, that Red Sox Nation loves the Yankees? So I consulted the oracle called Google, which never fails to deliver a big hit, and in this case it was a walk-off home run. I found the following from Allison Morgan, a law student at Boston University, who earlier this year wrote: “The confinement of anyone in America for reasons other than incarceration for a criminal act has always created difficult dilemmas. Historically, the courts have condoned civil commitment laws when based on proof that a person is dangerous to himself or others and suffering from a mental illness, disease or defect. The Supreme Court reinforced this general policy in Foucha vs. Louisiana (1992), holding that “mere” dangerousness without mental illness cannot justify civil commitment when a person has served out the sentence imposed under the criminal law as punishment for wrongdoing.” That “and” in Morgan’s second sentence is vitally important. Even though all sexual offenders were at least temporarily evil, they are not necessarily mentally ill in a clinical sense. Thus the due process in civil confinement must involve not only a magistrate, but also competent medical authorities who know insanity when they see it and, to judge the likelihood of continued danger to themselves or others, psychiatrists so good that they can foretell the future. Formidable problems, both. Actually, New York state does have a civil confinement law, a fairly recent one advocated and signed by Gov. Spitzer, one that does grant due process. It should be given time to work without interference from municipal legislatures. But what our state Legislature could and should do — and this is well precedented — is to establish sentencing guidelines for judges that sanction longer jail sentences for pedophiles, or suggest that after jail time, additional periods be spent wearing wirelessly monitored GPS devices so that law enforcement knows where sexual offenders are at all times. The technology is there to do this. But, punishment or not, such a complex sentence can be rendered only upon first judgment. No mulligans.
Landing on child abuse registry as simple as one person’s say-so BY DANIEL T. WEAVER For The Sunday Gazette
Almost everyone knows that New York maintains a sex offender registry, but few people know that the state also maintains a child abuse and maltreatment registry, known as the State Central Register. While the sex offender registry serves a useful purpose, making the public aware of convicted sex offenders, the nature of their crimes and where they are currently living, the child abuse and maltreatment registry is seriously flawed and is injurious to thousands of people who have never been convicted of a crime. That’s because you do not have to be convicted of a crime to have your name placed on the child abuse and maltreatment registry. Just how does a name get on the registry? After a phone call is made to the child-abuse hot line, a report of the call is made to Child Protective Services. CPS launches an investigation that can take up to 60 days to complete. When the investigators complete their investigation, they either “indicate” or declare that the report is unfounded. An unfounded report means that the investigator found no evidence of neglect or abuse. An indicated report means that the investigator found some evidence of neglect or abuse. Once a report is indicated, the person who allegedly abused or neglected a child is immediately placed on the childabuse registry. All it takes, then, to be placed on the registry is one person’s investigation, resulting in his or her belief that there is some evidence that abuse or neglect took place. The investigator is not required to find that there is a preponderance of evidence pointing to guilt, but only some evidence. TOUGH TO GET OFF LIST It’s true that some of these cases end up in court and the person named in the report is found guilty of neglect or abuse, but there are also many cases where the person is found innocent. If a person is found innocent, his or her name is not automatically removed from the registry. A separate hearing has to be held to do that and the alleged perpetrator has to formally request that hearing within a certain time frame. Many times a report is indicated, particularly in neglect cases, and no criminal charges are lodged. I know of cases where a CPS investigator indicated a report of neglect, but no charges or petitions were filed in either family or criminal court. My guess is that the investigator did not really believe there was any neglect, but wanted to protect herself in case more evidence surfaced in the future. What is disturbing about the child abuse and maltreatment registry is that regardless of whether a person is guilty, he or she is placed on the registry before having a chance to defend her or her innocence. And he or she is placed on that registry based on the investigation of one person. This is akin to a person being placed on the sex offender registry before going to trial, based on one detective’s investigation. This becomes even more troubling when one realizes that the registry is not just a list of people who have been accused of child abuse and neglect and investigated by one person who believes there is some evidence of neglect, but it is also a form of punishment. While the child abuse registry is not available to the general public, it is available to employers who employ people in jobs where there is contact with children, such as day care, teaching or pediatric nursing. HINDERING JOB SEARCH When you apply for a job working with children, your prospective employer will most likely send an inquiry to the New York state Offi ce of Children & Family Services to see if your name is on the register. If your name is on it, the employer is not likely to care whether you are innocent or whether you got your day in court. He’s not likely to hire you, and with lawsuits and liability insurance being what they are, you can hardly blame him. The real culprits here are not employers who use the list, CPS investigators who put people on the list, or the state Office of Children & Family Services, which maintains the list. The real culprits are the New York state Assembly and Senate, which passed the laws setting up the registry and the rules for getting placed on the list. These laws are unfair and most likely unconstitutional, but no one has challenged them. Most of the people on the list, whether guilty or innocent, are the kind that can’t afford an attorney to represent them at a “fair hearing” to get their name taken off the list, much less afford to challenge the laws that put them on the list in the first place. Civil liberties groups have challenged sex offender laws — laws that often affect convicted criminals — because of their unfairness. The same attention needs to be paid to parents, foster parents, grandparents and others who have been placed on the child abuse and maltreatment registry before having their day in court and in some cases without ever having their day in court.
Sex offender residence issue gets tiresome, but debate necessary Gazette Managing Editor Tom Woodman’s Editor’s Notes column appears monthly in the Sunday Opinion section. Send questions and comments to woodman@dailygazette. com or by mail to 2345 Maxon Road Extension, P.O. Box 1090, Schenectady, NY 12301-1090.
In the flow of news events, there often seem to be some stories that just won’t end. Whether they’re about a political contention in Albany, trash disposal in Montgomery County or water supply in Saratoga County, we find ourselves writing story after story. We worry, of course, about beating a topic to death, and as editors we’ll sometimes cringe when we see another story coming on a wellworn topic. But if a story is important to our readers, we have a responsibility to stay with it, through twists, turns and developments over time. Our challenge is to make sure we’re not just rehashing the same material, but writing when developments reflect real changes in events or in our understanding of an issue. This comes to mind because lately we have had intensive coverage of Schenectady County’s efforts to regulate where sex offenders may live. From before the proposal became county law in June until now, the issue has been continually in the news as well as the subject of editorials and numerous pieces by columnist Carl Strock. Some readers have complained that they think we’re overdoing the coverage. PLAYING A KEY ROLE Although I’ll admit to an occasional weariness with the debate, I think the county’s handling of this question has been one of the most important tests of local lawmakers in recent years. And I think that The Gazette’s coverage and commentary has played a central role in informing residents about the law and its implications. Our news stories have followed the course of a debate that has stayed alive because important issues remained unresolved and voices that weren’t heard initially demanded to be heard. And even though the county eventually responded by revising its law, crucial steps, including likely legal challenges, are still to come. We will continue to cover those events and explore the ramifications of this legislation. Some reader objections have targeted Strock’s columns, feeling he has written too much on the topic. Most of the objectors, I imagine, disagree with his challenges to the logic underlying the county action. Fewer people object to a columnist making a point forcefully if they agree with the point. But agree or not, readers should recognize the value of journalism that refuses to accept convenient assumptions and insists that policy makers not substitute pandering for thoughtful analysis. When Strock points out, for instance, that data on repeat sex offenses do not support residential restrictions, he is challenging reader and lawmaker alike to account for that information. Whether in favor of or opposed to the restrictions, they need to know how their position accords with the facts. Similarly, the paper’s commentary has sharpened our focus on the impact of Schenectady’s restrictions on neighboring communities and on the likely desperation of offenders faced with few legal places to live. EVOLVING ARGUMENTS I believe that each time the paper has editorialized or Strock has written about the residency restrictions, we have presented additional information or a new question. While the points of view have remained consistent, the details have changed and the arguments have evolved along with the larger story. I also believe that the public and legislative debate on this point has been good for the community, though tiresome at times. Democracy can be messy but if the messiness comes from the clash of a diversity of views vigorously presented, that’s not a bad thing. Though some have found the newspaper coverage tiresome at times as well, I think much of the public discussion would not have taken place without it. And that’s not a bad thing either.
I'm with you about the motives of our Legislators. The timeframe certainly doesn't seem adequate to study the complex issue of sex offender residency, particularly when you engage dozens of people to perform the study. The 90 days, however, pushes the report beyond Election Day.
The question that I have is who is coordinating this effort? Is the County Legislature assuming the responsibility for providing the leadership necessary to engage the experts or are they waiting for this group to form independently? I have read or heard nothing regarding the formation of the panel.
Quoted Text
This act of 'political bullsh**' just reinforces the fact that the county legislature has failed the taxpayers miserably. And have lost their ability to govern the people through their arrogance and inabilities!!
I agree with you also that the County Legislature as a body is ineffective, disfunctional and unaccountable to the consituents who elected them. I would encourage all on this board who agree that the change is necessary to become engaged. Let us work to support the election of those who may be able to work for the betterment of the county.
As a Conservative party member, I will be voting in the primary for Angelo Santabarbera. Those who support Santabarbera receiving the Conservative party endorsement will be required to write his name in the ballot as the party has placed Jasenki's name on the line. For those Conservative party members of District 4, Schenectady County, be reminded that Jasenski voted for "Kosiur's Law". He is also a registered Democrat who will vote, as he has done to date, with the majority, placing party above policy.
Logged
