I heard through the grapevine that Judy turn coat Dagostino may not seek another term. If that is the case, I don't know where her loyalties will lie. And since she is a 'turn coat', I don't hold much hope for her! As far as Suzie, all she has to do is recount the votes from the last election which cost the dems a HUGE black eye.
Personally, I want to see this law rescinded entirely. No revisions. No conversations. No meetings. Let the state handle this matter for the masses. Nothing short of Jessica's law should be enforced. Perhaps then and only then will the dems regain some dignity. Since the dems/libs, from Spitzer all the way down are appearing as a sorry bunch.
The only bi-partisan action would be for all dems/libs/reps to rally together and bring it to the state level. Nothing short of that would satify me and others that have shared their concerns.
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
SCHENECTADY COUNTY Dems to alter offender laws Legislators cite concerns of town supervisors BY MICHAEL LAMENDOLA Gazette Reporter
Democrats in the Schenectady County Legislature said they will change local laws restricting where sex offenders may live in response to concerns raised by town supervisors. The changes are expected to be introduced as a notice of public hearing at Tuesday night’s meeting of the Legislature. A public hearing is required before the Legislature can amend the laws. The action comes following a meeting Tuesday night of the Legislature’s 11-member Democratic Caucus and represents a change from an earlier statement by Schenectady County Legislature Chairwoman Susan Savage, D-Niskayuna. At Monday night’s county Legislature committee meeting, Savage said she did not anticipate any immediate changes to the laws. A key change proposed by Democrats is to repeal the law that would force convicted sex offenders from their homes or apartments after Oct. 1. If the law is repealed, convicted sex offenders could remain in their homes and apartments, provided they lived there before Oct. 1. The Oct. 1 provision is considered the most controversial of two county laws the Legislature approved June 12. It would force hundreds of convicted sex offenders, most of them living in the city, to move if they live within 2,000 of an existing facility catering to children, or one that opens after the law takes effect. The legislation effectively zones out sex offenders from most of the city and Scotia. As such, town supervisors fear many convicted sex offenders will relocate to their areas after Oct. 1. County leaders said this will not happen and that convicted sex offenders will instead leave the county to find affordable housing. That prospect raised concerns in Montgomery County, which has no such restrictions. Other proposed changes include exempting Level 1 convicted sex offenders from the legislation’s provisions, leaving levels 2 and 3, and allowing towns to adopt more restrictive provisions if they choose. Under the last provision the towns, in essence, could establish exclusion zones to bar sex offenders in the same manner the county law bars them from the city and densely populated areas. As currently enacted, county law makes it a misdemeanor for any convicted sex offender, regardless of the severity of his or her crime, to live within 2,000 feet of any facility associated with children. The second county law, now expected to be repealed, would have empowered the county to remove registered sex offenders who have not moved out of the exclusion zones by Oct. 1. SAVAGE SHIFTS POSITION “The changes being considered are the result of discussions within the Democratic Caucus. They also address concerns by the towns,” Savage said. She said the changes are not a reaction to Wednesday’s announcement by the New York Civil Liberties Union that it plans legal action unless the county changes the laws. “The changes are not in reaction to a threatened lawsuit by the Civil Liberties Union. We anticipated they would challenge this law from day one. Also, the changes are not a result of Daily Gazette editorials,” Savage said. NYCLU Executive Director Melanie Trimble said Schenectady’s laws violate the state Constitution, increase punishment for a crime after it has been committed and “place an undue burden on surrounding communities to which sex offenders might be forced to migrate.” Trimble said residency restriction laws “correlate with increased recidivism and cause former offenders to stop registering with law-enforcement authorities and to abandon the community support services that may actually inhibit them from reoffending.” Niskayuna Supervisor Luke Smith said the proposed changes fail to address his main concern that the exclusion zones, whether they are 2,000 feet or more, will force convicted sex offenders to avoid registering with the state Sex Offender Registry, as they seek residences to avoid the county law. “I don’t know what they are doing to affect that,” Smith said. “This sounds like a one-size-fits-all solution, without any discussion of risk-level offense [regarding levels 1, 2 and 3]. Those were some of the issues we raised. I don’t know what these changes do to address those issues.” Registered sex offenders in New York are classified by the risk of reoffending. A court determines whether an offender is a Level 1 (low risk), Level 2 (moderate risk) or Level 3 (high risk). The court also decides if an offender should be given the designation of a sexual predator, sexually violent offender or predicate sex offender. Level 1 offenders with no designation must register for 20 years. Level 1 offenders with a designation, as well as Level 2 and Level 3 offenders regardless of whether they have a designation, must register for life. Minority Leader Robert Farley, RNiskayuna, said he sees the proposed changes as stemming from conversations with town supervisors. “It seems some of the town supervisors are being listened to. The towns have to enforce this and they have to be on board.” SUPERVISORS CRITICAL County Democratic leaders met on Friday with supervisors from Rotterdam, Duanesburg, Princetown, Glenville and Niskayuna to discuss their concerns. Farley said he supports some of the proposed changes, such as removing Level 1 offenders from the legislation, and may offer additional amendments through the Republican Caucus. Farley said that while the Oct. 1 provision “has constitutional issues,” he is not in favor of “grandfathering” convicted sex offenders into the community. “I have concerns with that. Why is it OK for someone to be there now and not OK for someone to move there?” he asked. “I do want to hear from the public on that.” County Legislator Vincent DiCerbo, D-Schenectady, said Democrats are revising the laws to make peace with the towns. “It is a bone of contention with the suburban towns. Our goal has been cooperation, not confrontation. We don’t want an adversarial relationship with the towns. We want to protect our children and do it in the most reasonable method possible,” DiCerbo said. County Democrats have worked well with the towns on several projects to combine or share services and want to continue these efforts, DiCerbo said. “We have had success doing that. We don’t want to jeopardize that.” He said the state should take action to make residency restriction laws uniform. “Our goal is to have the state Legislature take a statewide approach to this problem. That is where the ultimate solution for this will be found. The lack of state action has forced local legislatures to take piecemeal approaches to this issue,” DiCerbo said. The state does not regulate where offenders live, but requires they provide residency information. The information is used to compile the New York State Sex Offender Registry. Some offenders may face housing restrictions as a result of their individual probation or parole case. DiCerbo said Schenectady County passed its legislation after Saratoga, Rensselaer and Albany counties passed residency restrictions on convicted sex offenders. Local officials feared an influx of sex offenders from these counties.
Carl Strock THE VIEW FROM HERE Schenectady’s imaginary predators Carl Strock can be reached at 395-3085 or by e-mail at carlstrock@dailygazette.com.
So the Schenectady County Legislature is backing down. The majority Democrats have decided to forgo the banishment of registered sex offenders and to exempt the lowest level of offenders altogether. I refer to the law — actually, two separate laws — that were to bar anyone on the state Sex Offender Registry from moving into any area within 2,000 feet of a school, playground, daycare center or public swimming pool (the first law) and then to evict such people who already lived there (the second law). Both laws made no distinction as to level of offense. They will apparently keep the restriction on the more serious levels of offenders moving into restricted areas, which many other municipalities also have passed in the current panic over sex offenders, but the banishment will be repealed — just as the New York Civil Liberties Union announced it was going to sue. Very well. Given what the Legislature went through to obtain this drastic law, which had the stated purpose of protecting children from predators, wouldn’t you suppose that sex crimes against children by registered offenders must be quite a serious problem in Schenectady? I mean, for the local legislature to have gone to such lengths. Wouldn’t you suppose there must have been quite a few cases in recent years of children being molested by registered offenders? Well, if you did suppose such a thing, that is, if you supposed that the legislators were responding to an actual problem rather than just opportunistically riding a wave of popular hysteria, you would be grievously mistaken. I have checked into the matter, which admittedly I should have done earlier, and here is what I learned from no less an authority than Schenectady County District Attorney Robert Carney and his assistant for sex-crime prosecution, Andra Ackerman: In the past two years the district attorney’s office has processed 113 sex-crime defendants, and of those a mere six were registered offenders repeating their crimes. Further, of those six repeaters, only two were charged with offenses against children, and of those two, neither was accused as a stranger. They were both some kind of family members or acquaintances. In other words in the past two years there has not been a single case of what the legislators (and many others) want us to believe is a tremendous social problem — serial “predators” skulking around schools and playgrounds waiting to snatch away our innocent children for their perverted gratification. Not a single case. So the panic is even more crackpot than I thought, or more cynical. When I recall the oratory that washed over me on the evening of June 12 when the legislators voted on their banishment bill and how they justified it with the supposedly out-of-control recidivism rate of sexual predators — without ever having checked with their own district attorney — it makes my head ache now. I close my eyes and I can see them flourishing their tape measures and I can hear them pledging their sacred honor, and I reflect that it was all just sort of hypothetical, or imaginary, and, yes, the blood pounds in my temples. Too bad we probably won’t get to hear the proposed banishment argued in court. In a four-page letter just sent to the county’s legislators, the Civil Liberties Union said the two local laws violate a rule against “exercising authority in a manner that is inconsistent with overriding state law and policy,” and also that it’s “clearly unconstitutional to evict law-abiding citizens from their homes, and effectively banish them from the entire county, based on an ex post facto law, which increases the punishment for the original crime after it is committed.” The lawyers who signed up to pursue this matter for the Civil Liberties Union are Terry Kindlon of Albany; an associate of his, Kathy Manley; and David Giacalone, a retired lawyer from the city of Schenectady. I would have liked to hear the arguments and heard the decision. READING DISORDER As for the letter in yesterday’s newspaper from a self-described therapist declaring, “Mr. Strock is again mistaken. Child molesters have always existed,” my diagnosis is that the writer has Basic Reading Disorder, since of course I never said that child molesters don’t exist. I just gave what I perceive as the history of the recent hysteria. Of course child molesters exist, and I suppose they always have, but the vast exaggeration of the danger they pose is a recent phenomenon. Mostly they molest children who are close to them, like family members, friends or neighbors, while the kind of creature we all dread, the monster who lurks behind bushes waiting to rape and murder our children, is a great rarity, which you can look up for yourself. She says I have a “prejudiced and unrealistic view.” But what’s prejudiced and unrealistic about that? I think it’s entirely accurate. She says I should “wise up,” that “this is a crime and illness which is never cured but managed.” I don’t know what kind of therapist she is, since she didn’t return my phone call, but she must not have attended the conference last year at the Glen Sanders Mansion of a couple hundred people who deal with sex offenders every day, and she must not have listened to Ken Lau, president of the state chapter of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, or she wouldn’t say such foolish and ignorant things. Oh, the abuse I take in my job. There ought to be a law.
Residency law faces possible challenge Schenectady County action against sexual predators is biased, NYCLU claims
By CAROL DeMARE, Staff writer First published: Thursday, August 9, 2007
SCHENECTADY -- The New York Civil Liberties Union has put Schenectady County lawmakers on notice that if they continue to enforce tough new restrictions on where convicted sex offenders can live, the county will face a lawsuit.
In a letter to all 15 legislators, the Civil Liberties Union's Capital Region Chapter pulled no punches, warning legislators the local laws would be challenged in court on constitutional grounds. The NYCLU condemned the legislation and said the county was wrong to usurp state laws that applied to convicted sex offenders.
In June, legislators unanimously passed residency restrictions requiring sex offenders to leave their homes starting Oct. 1, if they were within 2,000 feet of public parks, pools and playgrounds, schools or day care and youth facilities. A second law bans offenders from moving within 2,000 feet of such areas.
Late Wednesday, after the NYCLU letter, dated a day earlier, became public, Schenectady County Legislature Chairwoman Susan Savage issued a brief written statement suggesting the laws could be amended.
"As a result of discussions with members of the County Legislature and town supervisors, we are considering changes" to the two local laws, Savage said. "These changes were already under consideration and are not in response to the threatened lawsuit by the New York Civil Liberties Union."
For weeks since the measures were passed and at public hearings before that, Democrats in the Legislature stood firm, saying they had no intention of amending the controversial laws.
The restrictions have been cited as the reason behind the loss of chief-sponsor Democrat Ed Kosiur's bid for the state Assembly last month.
Officials in the towns of Rotterdam, Duanesburg, Niskayuna and Princetown had rallied against the county measures, claiming they would force sex offenders into the suburbs or even into hiding.
"We don't banish people any longer in the 21st century," Melanie Trimble, executive director of the local chapter, said Wednesday. "You cannot banish ex-offenders who have fully complied with the law and completed their sentence or probation."
In the four-page letter, the organization urged the legislature "to reconsider its actions and rescind these onerous, unjust and unconstitutional laws. If you should persist in enforcing these laws, we would be left with no other option but to pursue litigation with all the attendant legal costs to the county which that implies. If you seek to amend these laws rather than repeal them, we strongly recommend that you bring them into conformity with New York state practice."
Trimble criticized the rash of sex-offender laws that are popping up all over the area and throughout the state and country.
"These laws tend to make the citizenry less safe from re-offending sex offenders," Trimble said. "They tend to drive them underground away from the rehabilitation resources and from friends and family and counseling."
"The main thrust of any argument against these laws, besides the pre-emption argument, is they simply do not do what they purport to do," she said. "There is no statistical record that shows these laws cause a reduction in the recidivism rate among sex-offenders."
-emption refers to a locality overriding what the state already has in place. In New York, there is comprehensive legislation designed to protect the public from ex-offenders," Trimble said. Several local governments have either adopted or are studying proposed laws. Albany County approved a measure last summer restricting convicted Level 2 and 3 sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of schools and day care centers. The law has not been challenged.
"The difference between Albany County and Schenectady County is that Albany County was modeled after the Iowa state statute," which has been upheld in federal court, said William Conboy, attorney for the Democratic majority in the Albany County Legislature.
Trimble said the state has virtually the same law -- the 1,000-foot limit. It also has a civil confinement law for the worst offenders and Megan's Law that mandates registration on the state Sex Offender Registry.
Besides Trimble, the letter was signed by Albany attorneys Terence Kindlon and Kathy Manley and Schenectady attorney David Giacalone.
Schenectady laws are "clearly unconstitutional, and they need to realize they should not be putting the taxpayers of Schenectady County in a position to defend an indefensible piece of legislation because they're going to lose," Trimble said. DeMare can be reached at 454-5431 or by e-mail at cdemare@timesunion.com.
Who is Suzie Savage kidding when she says the sex offender law will be revised or rescind but not due to the threatening law suit by the NYCLU. She must still think we are all stupid. She is trying to make it sound like they are going to 'make nice' with the surrounding counties supervisors. A little too late Suzie. From the talk on the street, the dems will be voted out soon, EVEN if they rescind this rediculous law. This sex offender law served as a magnifying glass to see what these county officials are REALLY like. And the general concensus is...the people don't like what they see.
This law was clearly a political ploy to get Ed Kosiur elected, which has backfired miserably. And that is the only reason!
And as far as flip flop Farley....he was one on this sex offender bandstand right from the beginning. It's time for him to go too!!!
A word for you Suzie and Eddy....'it's not nice to fool smart voters'!!!
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Ms. Savage's comments that the proposed changes to the laws were prompted neither by the NYCLU's notice of intent to file suit nor by the considerable number of Letters to the Editor, written by residents of the county who oppose the legislation as written, received and published by the Daily Gazette are inane and illustrate her inability to assess the realities of the issue. If her statements were true, they would indicate that she has disregard for both the constituency that she was elected to serve and to the LAW. It is a shame that her judgement has been compromised by her greater desire to participate in political partisanship. This is further exemplified by the meeting of the "Democratic Caucus" of the Schenectady County Legislature. Why weren't ALL of our elected Legislators, regardless of party, invited to participate in this caucus? The legislation had bipartisan support and bipartisan opposition. Though sponsored by the Democratic majority to advance the candidacy of it's sponsor, Mr. Kosiur, the issue of its rescission and/or revision is one that should involve the entire government body.
Quoted Text
Farley said that while the Oct. 1 provision “has constitutional issues,” he is not in favor of “grandfathering” convicted sex offenders into the community. “I have concerns with that. Why is it OK for someone to be there now and not OK for someone to move there?” he asked. “I do want to hear from the public on that.”
Mr. Farley's comments illustrate a clear lack of understanding of legal precendent. The grounds of the NYCLU lawsuit focus on the retroactive enforcement of Local Law 04-07 that requires those convicted sex offenders who currently reside in exclusion areas to move. That, Mr. Farley is what is meant by "grandfathering".
As for "Why is it OK for someone to be there now and not OK for someone to move there?", the answer from the public (me) is as follows:
If a person was entitled to purchase property or to enter into a lease for rental property that is located in an exclusion area and to occupy that home, it is unjust and has been found to be unconstitutional to require them to relocate based on subsequently passed legislation. There are property rights that must be considered. Further the requirement of Local Law 04-07 that provides for the forced relocation of convicted sex offenders with the creation of a newly defined exclusion area resulting from a new school, park, day care, etc. being established is a further violation of one's property rights. Finally, the added financial burden resulting from the defense of this indefensible legislation, the enforcement of the law, and the damages that will likely be awarded by the courts to those who are displaced to compensate them for the expenses (home sale, lease break, moving expenses, etc.) will land squarely in the wallets of the taxpayers. As residents of one of the highest taxed counties in the entire United States, we cannot afford an increase in taxes resulting from the irresponsible acts of the County Legislators.
I heard through the grapevine that Judy turn coat Dagostino may not seek another term.
Bumble, no concern on my part. I wonder if the decision is being contemplated by Ms. Dagostino or if the Democratic party machine, realizing that she is "damaged goods" as a result of her support for the legislation and the overwhelming public opposition, has decided to support someone else, who may be electible for the seat? Frank Quinn (D), the Town Supervisor of Glenville, with his announcement yesterday that he and the other Town Supervisors will work jointly to propose effective legislation based on input from subject matter experts, has illustrated his willingness to work in a bipartisan spirit, his advocacy for his constituents, and his ability to support efforts based on the merits of the issues and not on partisan politics. He would, in my opinion, be worth consideration if he expresses interest in running for the Schenectady County Legislature.
BTW, where is Ed Kosiur? Not a public statement from him since his lop-sided loss in the Special Election on July 31st. Does he still sit on the County Legislature? If so, is he performing the duties of his position? This legislation was sponsored by Mr. Kosiur and was heavily promoted in the platform on which he campaigned. What is his position regarding changing the legislation?
Ms. Savage's comments that the proposed changes to the laws were prompted neither by the NYCLU's notice of intent to file suit nor by the considerable number of Letters to the Editor, written by residents of the county who oppose the legislation as written, received and published by the Daily Gazette are inane and illustrate her inability to assess the realities of the issue. If her statements were true, they would indicate that she has disregard for both the constituency that she was elected to serve and to the LAW.
BTW, where is Ed Kosiur? Not a public statement from him since his lop-sided loss in the Special Election on July 31st. Does he still sit on the County Legislature? If so, is he performing the duties of his position? This legislation was sponsored by Mr. Kosiur and was heavily promoted in the platform on which he campaigned. What is his position regarding changing the legislation?
Looking to revive his plumbing business? We hear he's not coming back to the seat.
291.07 The Town Board calls upon Schenectady County to demand the immediate abolishment of Resolution Nos. 03-2007 and 04-2007 and the Town Board calls upon the Schenectady County Legislature, the New York State Legislature, and the Governor of the State of New York to urge the immediate passage of New York State’s Jessica’s Law.
There was great discussion on this, as well as myself and Mr. Santabarbara speaking on this subject before the council went into the resolutions not having to do with personnel issues. I personally asked for the board to send an unwaivering opinion to the Schenectady County board that the town of Rotterdam stood together on this. Well, there was great discussion at the time that this resolution came up. Mr. Godlewski suggested that this be changed to "demand the suspension until further review could be done, possibly with a new effective date of 1/1/08. Well, the rest of the board voiced off, including many interruptions, going on and on from Mr. Godlewski, Mr. Mertz and Mr. Tommasone. Off the top of my head, I don't remember when / if Ms. Marco or Mr. Signore spoke up on it.
Well, come to say that eventually, Mr. Godlewski and Ms. Marco both voiced disdain for the resolution as it was written, then, by the time that it came time to vote on it (probably figuring that it would hurt future chances of election into other positions of political persuasion), the board voted unanimously to approve the resolution.
Which brings up the question...
If Mr. Godlewski and Ms. Marco so disagreed with the way that the resolution was worded and didn't want it to even be voted on the way it was...Why would they vote to approve of such a resolution that they don't agree with? Maybe so it can't be thrown back at Bob this November?
The dems are walking on a very, self inflicted, thin line these days. It doesn't surprise me that Mr. Robert hem n' haw Godlewski hedged on this one. It clearly displayed his lack of ability to represent his constituants. He reminds me of a lost child looking for directions. Clearly not a strong candidate for any political office. And clearly not one that will work in a bi-partisn fashion.
As far as good old Ms.mega mouth Marco goes, she is winding down her political career. But surely hanging in there to over see the RPD's union contract. But that's another story. As far as Kosiur and Amedore, this must have truly been a tough decision for her. Dems have been notorious for always siding with the business owners/developers in the community...no matter what. (that is, in part, how Rotterdam got into the mess it is today) And yet her party supported Kosiur AND his rediculous sex offender law. So she is sheepishly trying to follow party lines with a party that is at best dysfunctional.
The democratic tower of Babel is finally starting to crumble!
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
More media coverage tonight by WTEN and FOX 23 of the Duanesburg Town Board Meeting. At the meeting, the citizens of the town presented petitions with 600+ signatures of those supporting the town resolution, passed on July 12th, demanding that Local Laws 03-2007 and 04-2007 be rescinded by the County Legislature. The six hundred plus signatures were gathered in a three to four week period by many residents of the town. The current number represents nearly 15% of the registered voters in the town. The petitions will continue to be circulated. (It takes a big effort to visit every home in this expansive rural community). It was stated that the support for the goals of the grassroots movement was overwhelming.
Ms. Carolina Lazzari was in attendance again this month to hear the concerns of her Duanesburg constituents. She is to be commended for her efforts to attend public forums, solicit the inputs of her constituents, and represent their interests in the County Legislature. As usual, she was the only Legislator from District 4 who was in attendance at the meeting.
I give the residents of Duanesburg a ton of credit for all of the determined hard work they have done to protect their community. Going door to door in Duanesburg is not like going door to door in a housing development where houses are located right next to each other. There are many homes in Duanesuburg that are acres apart from one another. Good job Duanesburgians!!
And thank you Ms. Lazzari for your continued support!!
Almost forgot to mention that the petitions will be presented by Duanesburg Town Supervisor Rene Merrihew to the Schenectady County Legislature at their meeting on Tuesday, August 14th. Many of the town residents plan to be in attendance. The media will be alerted to the event to ensure coverage of the proceedings.
Posted on: 08/08/07 Written by: Jessica Harding, Schenectady County Reporter email: hardingj@spotlightnews.com
On Thursday, Aug. 2, town officials held a special meeting to discuss the county’s new law restricting where convicted sex offenders can live.
Supervisor Steven Tommasone said the town plans to vote on a resolution asking the county Legislature to rescind the law that he said would negatively impact the suburban towns in Schenectady County.
“If the intent of the legislation is to protect kids, this legislation does not do that,” Tommasone said.
At the June 12 meeting of the county Legislature, a law was passed that would keep convicted sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school, park, swimming pool or daycare, and force offenders who currently live in restricted zones to move by Oct. 1.
Rotterdam’s Department of Public Works put together a map of the town covered with red circles depicting where sex offenders would be banned. The only areas without red circles were in the northern and western parts of Rotterdam. If the county law goes into effect, by Oct. 1 the highly populated areas of Rotterdam would be off limits to convicted sex offenders of any level.
Officials from Schenectady County’s towns including Rotterdam, Glenville and Niskayuna are against the legislation for many reasons, including the fact that offenders would be moved out of the city and could settle in rural areas of Glenville and Rotterdam.
At Thursday’s meeting Tommasone said the state should be doing more to protect people from harmful criminals, including using available technology to track and prevent offenders from harming children.
Tommasone said creating arbitrary pedophile-free zones would not stop sex offenders.
“Creating circles doesn’t mean that miraculously people won’t go there,” he said.
Karen Johnson, D-Schenectady, one of the three county legislators who voted against the sex offender legislation made the same point at the Legislature’s June 12 meeting. “Restricting where people sleep does not mean we can prevent where they go,” Johnson said. Michael Eidens, D-Niskayuna, and Carolina Lazzari, R-Rotterdam, also voted against the legislation.
Rotterdam resident Kevin March said the county’s sex offender law only protects the city of Schenectady and foists the problem on the rural areas of the county. He also agreed that restricting where people sleep wouldn’t solve the problem.
“The (county) legislators are looking to empty their areas of the people they don’t want,” March said. “My kids live in a protected zone, but they may go somewhere else that is unprotected.”
Angelo Santabarbara, director of Rotterdam’s Industrial Development Agency and Republican candidate for county Legislature, said the law concerns him, and he is upset that two of Rotterdam’s representatives in the county Legislature voted to pass it. Republican Joseph Suhrada and Democrat Anthony Jasenski voted to pass the law.
“Anyone voting for this does not have the best interest of the towns at heart,” Santabarbara said.
In a telephone interview on Tuesday, Aug. 7, Suhrada said the county legislators should revisit the issue and if mistakes were made in the legislation, they should be fixed.
“I’ve heard various concerns from law enforcement and from the public and I think we should revisit this. If we made mistakes and we can amend them to make this more effective, we should do it,” he said.
Suhrada said the county legislators are becoming less in tune with the needs of the people. He said he was shocked that the town’s supervisors were not notified about this issue until the last minute.
“This was a tough vote for a lot of people and I think the public would appreciate the fact that we are looking at this from all sides,” Suhrada said.
Logged
