Our city leaders brought faith back to our community tonight in voting unanimously to extend the buffer zone from 1000 to 1500 ft. sex offender residency. They took a stand for this community and showed by their actions that our city is ready for change.
Will this be challenged in court – I believe it will, however, I believe more that our city will protect what is right. If we are challenged, we fight back as a city and stop this from continuing amongst us.
In Grand Rapids, Minnesota the following action was taken by City Council:
Moratorium set on sexual predators moving into city Saturday, February 5, 2011 12:00 pm
Moratorium set on sexual predators moving into city By Lisa Rosemore Grand Rapids It will be at least six months before sexual offenders and sexual predators will be allowed to move into the Grand Rapids city limits.
In a special meeting of the Grand Rapids City Council Wednesday morning, the council unanimously approved an interim city ordinance which bars sexual offenders and predators from moving into the city limits until an ordinance can be considered which regulates "proximity, residency and other land use requirements upon sex offenders and sexual predators living within the City of Grand Rapids." The interim ordinance expires on Aug. 2, 2011. Offenders currently residing in Grand Rapids are grandfathered in and are not affected by the interim ordinance.
Greenville City Council members, Roy Harrison, Doug Schmidt, Kathleen Floyd, John Baumgardner, Tracy Tryon, Leon Rogers and Todd Oliver; A BIG THANK YOU TO ALL OF THE CITY COUNICIL THEY DO CARE FOR OUR COMMUNITY AND OUR CHILDREN
Before I can make a comment, I am having a little trouble grasping Greenville City Council decision. Does this mean that sex offenders that were convicted of sex crimes (including Tier 3) before today's date will continue to be import to Greenville and to live at the Good Samaritan Homes? This could go on for years.
The council has done that which is most expedient at the moment to relieve pressure from the noisy few whose thinking is formed in fear engendered by misinformation. Now this incredibly bad stewardship will come home to roost as the city faces unplanned-for legal expenses in defending itself- and eventually loses. But the council will be exonerated in the minds of its short-sighted harassers.
12:15 a.m. - I believe it means those already living in the homes cannot be "moved out" since they are already there, not that those convicted before this date could still move in. But I could be wrong.
Good Job? What a sad day for real Christians. This "ban" was only aimed at one person - John Graham. What about extending the ban to Laura, OH - it didn't protect those girls. Anyone who thinks this is a good thing really does not understand what we are supposed to do as Christians. This just confirms that Greenville is not a community that desires it's people to act upon Biblical values. These men need help and John is there to support, not to point the finger and judge others. A sad day for compassion, kindness, and forgiveness.
J.B. that is exactly how it was reported on channel 7. If it is true that only future offenders are subject to this descision, this law appears to basically do nothing but set our town up for a lawsuit.
How long will it be until Al Sharpton and the ACLU come in and file a lawsuit on behalf of NAMBLA?
@ Anon 810- What if I'm not a "real" christian and this bothers me none? Apparently you have to be a real christian to live in Greenville now? Maybe we're a town of atheists.
As unfortunate as the incident in Laura is, how do you expect the Greenville City Council to extend the Greenville ban to Laura?
Bible thump all you want but we will be safer, Christian or not. As a good Christian I would expect you not to judge, whether it be a SO or the townspeople.
Someone sent me the copy of what is online at the Daily Advocate. What I find distrubing about the article is that the advocate seems to be very aware of the "empending" lawsuits. Do they have inside information that we don't have? They also not one time in all the articles that I have read talk about the victims, its always about "the ministry". City COuncil has made it Loud and clear what direction they want our city to move in... why would one person fight so hard to fight back? Is it really about the offenders and their rights? Ponder that one!
It's not the job of City Council to extend thing the ruling in Laura. That would be the duty of the township their... and to say I am not a Christian because I support the move well who does that make you ?!? I would help anyone who wants to help themselves... but to just rely on someone and only that person is selfish. Sure maybe not every single person JG has is a bad person. Unfortunately it only takes ONE TIME. It's not JG fault this last guy got busted by police I agree with that... but the fact he also brought him into this town is where it makes it his fault because not only was he a SO but also a drug attic.
I am all for public safety.... and I know they made the right choice. I'll defend the choice of City Council any day on this.
Kathy, Here is a link to a story on the threat of lawsuites from dayton dalily last year. http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/dayton-news/group-to-sue-if-city-tightens-sex-offender-rules-1041264.html
Good job council!! Glad to know that you guys are listening to what the people of Greenville want! To those making noise about the cost of a law suit, I can think of worse things for my tax dollars to be spent on than protecting the children of Greenville.
To those thumping the bible, get over it, not all of us are christians nor do we care what your beliefs are. It has nothing to do with this and everything to do with a mans greed versus the safety and well being of a community. To make it anything more than that, you are merely purposefully muddying the issue.
Great move on the cities part.
Next step is to run the ones currently here out, they have no business amongst decent people.
A step in the right direction in Greenville for sure... and the goings on in Laura are to be taken care of by the trustees there, correct? I don't believe that the city council of Greenville has any clout in another community.
Way to go city council!! Glad to know that the citizens of Greenville are being listened to! To the people that are talking about the court costs if there is a law suit, I can't think of a better way for my tax dollar to be used then to protect the children of Greenville.
Sorry if repost, Matthew 5:40. Anyways, this law doesn't forbid SO from living in town, just 1500' from schools. From the pic on the Advocate, it looks like some of the city is outside this mark. Also, this is a civil law, so someone would have to sue JG/SO to get them to move. Why or can he sue first if he hasn't been damaged? I wouldn't think he would be damaged until he loses money. Is the SO damaged if he can still live in town but not as close to schools? If you or I sue JG/SO to get a SO out, what are yours/my damages? I like the idea, just needs to be a criminal law and not civil. 2cents
Nuisance (also spelled nocence, through Fr. noisance, nuisance, from Lat. nocere, "to hurt") is a common law tort. It means that which causes offence, annoyance, trouble or injury. A nuisance can be either public (also "common") or private. A public nuisance was defined by English scholar Sir J. F. Stephen as,
"an act not warranted by law, or an omission to discharge a legal duty, which act or omission obstructs or causes inconvenience or damage to the public in the exercise of rights common to all His Majesty's subjects".[1]
Private nuisance is the interference with the right of specific people. Nuisance is one of the oldest causes of action known to the common law, with cases framed in nuisance going back almost to the beginning of recorded case law. Nuisance signifies that the "right of quiet enjoyment" is being disrupted to such a degree that a tort is being committed.
The Bible does not advise a Christian not to sue, but rather not to sue another Christian. Since the city is neither a Christian nor behaving in a Christian manner, it will be spending public funds to defend this charade.
Fred, you state: "Since the city is neither a Christian nor behaving in a Christian manner".
I am saddned that those that spend too much time feeling righteous and judging others are a bigger sinner than the person they are judging. Are you really Christian? Or are you Christian to feed your own feelings of insecurity? A true Christian does not need to put others down to lift themselves up. In the Bible in the book of Matthew 7 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
Come on folks…. We all know that anyone can take one word, or one sentence, or one passage from the Bible and “bend” it to their own meaning to support their own cause.
This is an attempt to help protect the innocent, the children… I don’t think anyone is trying to persecute anyone, only try to protect the innocent children by passing this ordinance. The majority has spoken and the City Council has listened, so the new ordinance passed. That is the way our government is suppose to work, and for those who disagree with the outcome, go to the poles next time any vote out your councilman or councilwoman.
As for me personally, I don’t care if J.G. is making money on his business… but what I do care about is trying to keep our children safe… will this ordinance do that, who knows, but it does help. These Sex Offenders know if they choose to live their lifestyle and are caught, they will be labeled as Sex Offenders and have to report their whereabouts from that time on… I don’t know if you can rehabilitate a Sex Offender, but keeping them an additional 500’ from places that our children congregate is not persecuting them. It is an attempt to help protect our children…
If the special interest groups decide to come into our community and sue because the majority have ask for this ordinance, so be it… there is nothing we can do about that except support the City Council. These special interest groups don’t live in Our Community, we do… it’s up to us to not be bullied by these media-hungry groups.
To the City Council, you did the right thing, you listened to the Majority… and for that I want to thank you.
Vote Smart is right - this issue is based on protecting children and adults from harm. Children need to have safety nets in place for their own protection. Statistics shown that about half of sexual assaults victims were children with 87% being female, stated by David Berenson. City Council has my support.
Big thanks to city council , You did a great job and it was the right thing to do! Citizens for change , Awsome Job! You Rock!
ReplyDeleteOur city leaders brought faith back to our community tonight in voting unanimously to extend the buffer zone from 1000 to 1500 ft. sex offender residency. They took a stand for this community and showed by their actions that our city is ready for change.
ReplyDeleteWill this be challenged in court – I believe it will, however, I believe more that our city will protect what is right. If we are challenged, we fight back as a city and stop this from continuing amongst us.
In Grand Rapids, Minnesota the following action was taken by City Council:
Moratorium set on sexual predators moving into city
Saturday, February 5, 2011 12:00 pm
Moratorium set on sexual predators moving into city
By Lisa Rosemore Grand Rapids
It will be at least six months before sexual offenders and sexual predators will be allowed to move into the Grand Rapids city limits.
In a special meeting of the Grand Rapids City Council Wednesday morning, the council unanimously approved an interim city ordinance which bars sexual offenders and predators from moving into the city limits until an ordinance can be considered which regulates "proximity, residency and other land use requirements upon sex offenders and sexual predators living within the City of Grand Rapids." The interim ordinance expires on Aug. 2, 2011. Offenders currently residing in Grand Rapids are grandfathered in and are not affected by the interim ordinance.
The City made the right decision, Thank You.
ReplyDeleteAnd thank you to the citizens for standing up and voicing your concerns.
Greenville City Council members, Roy Harrison, Doug Schmidt, Kathleen Floyd, John Baumgardner, Tracy Tryon, Leon Rogers and Todd Oliver; A BIG THANK YOU TO ALL OF THE CITY COUNICIL THEY DO CARE FOR OUR COMMUNITY AND OUR CHILDREN
ReplyDeleteThank You Craig Francis
This is good; I am celebrating like I did when the CO2 sequestering project was stopped. We do still live in a caring community. Thanks, City Council.
ReplyDeleteBefore I can make a comment, I am having a little trouble grasping Greenville City Council decision. Does this mean that sex offenders that were convicted of sex crimes (including Tier 3) before today's date will continue to be import to Greenville and to live at the Good Samaritan Homes? This could go on for years.
ReplyDeleteno those that live there now can seay but no new residents(sex offenders) can move in no matter when their crime occurred.
ReplyDeleteThe council has done that which is most expedient at the moment to relieve pressure from the noisy few whose thinking is formed in fear engendered by misinformation. Now this incredibly bad stewardship will come home to roost as the city faces unplanned-for legal expenses in defending itself- and eventually loses. But the council will be exonerated in the minds of its short-sighted harassers.
ReplyDeleteThe correct action was taken.
ReplyDeleteCourageous vote last night. Congrats to the city council for doing the right thing.
ReplyDelete12:15 a.m. - I believe it means those already living in the homes cannot be "moved out" since they are already there, not that those convicted before this date could still move in. But I could be wrong.
ReplyDeleteGood Job? What a sad day for real Christians. This "ban" was only aimed at one person - John Graham. What about extending the ban to Laura, OH - it didn't protect those girls. Anyone who thinks this is a good thing really does not understand what we are supposed to do as Christians. This just confirms that Greenville is not a community that desires it's people to act upon Biblical values. These men need help and John is there to support, not to point the finger and judge others. A sad day for compassion, kindness, and forgiveness.
ReplyDeleteJ.B. that is exactly how it was reported on channel 7. If it is true that only future offenders are subject to this descision, this law appears to basically do nothing but set our town up for a lawsuit.
ReplyDeleteHow long will it be until Al Sharpton and the ACLU come in and file a lawsuit on behalf of NAMBLA?
@ Anon 810- What if I'm not a "real" christian and this bothers me none? Apparently you have to be a real christian to live in Greenville now? Maybe we're a town of atheists.
ReplyDeleteAs unfortunate as the incident in Laura is, how do you expect the Greenville City Council to extend the Greenville ban to Laura?
Bible thump all you want but we will be safer, Christian or not. As a good Christian I would expect you not to judge, whether it be a SO or the townspeople.
Someone sent me the copy of what is online at the Daily Advocate. What I find distrubing about the article is that the advocate seems to be very aware of the "empending" lawsuits. Do they have inside information that we don't have? They also not one time in all the articles that I have read talk about the victims, its always about "the ministry". City COuncil has made it Loud and clear what direction they want our city to move in... why would one person fight so hard to fight back? Is it really about the offenders and their rights? Ponder that one!
ReplyDeleteIt's not the job of City Council to extend thing the ruling in Laura. That would be the duty of the township their... and to say I am not a Christian because I support the move well who does that make you ?!? I would help anyone who wants to help themselves... but to just rely on someone and only that person is selfish. Sure maybe not every single person JG has is a bad person. Unfortunately it only takes ONE TIME. It's not JG fault this last guy got busted by police I agree with that... but the fact he also brought him into this town is where it makes it his fault because not only was he a SO but also a drug attic.
ReplyDeleteI am all for public safety.... and I know they made the right choice. I'll defend the choice of City Council any day on this.
THANK YOU, COUNCIL!!!! GREAT WORK, KB! Very proud of my city FINALLY! :)
ReplyDeleteKathy,
ReplyDeleteHere is a link to a story on the threat of lawsuites from dayton dalily last year.
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/dayton-news/group-to-sue-if-city-tightens-sex-offender-rules-1041264.html
Here comes the lawsuit scare! *rolling eyes* We have to do the RIGHT THING even if it costs! Money is nothing compared to child safety :(
ReplyDeleteThe Bible states that a Christian man should not sue. We might find out soon enough if a certain man is a real Christian or just in it for the money.
ReplyDeleteGood job council!! Glad to know that you guys are listening to what the people of Greenville want! To those making noise about the cost of a law suit, I can think of worse things for my tax dollars to be spent on than protecting the children of Greenville.
ReplyDeleteLet him sue, he will lose.
ReplyDeleteTo those thumping the bible, get over it, not all of us are christians nor do we care what your beliefs are. It has nothing to do with this and everything to do with a mans greed versus the safety and well being of a community. To make it anything more than that, you are merely purposefully muddying the issue.
Great move on the cities part.
Next step is to run the ones currently here out, they have no business amongst decent people.
A step in the right direction in Greenville for sure... and the goings on in Laura are to be taken care of by the trustees there, correct? I don't believe that the city council of Greenville has any clout in another community.
ReplyDeleteE.M. Well, there ya go! :) Can you give that bible verse? I would like to read :)
ReplyDeleteWay to go city council!! Glad to know that the citizens of Greenville are being listened to! To the people that are talking about the court costs if there is a law suit, I can't think of a better way for my tax dollar to be used then to protect the children of Greenville.
ReplyDeleteSorry if repost, Matthew 5:40. Anyways, this law doesn't forbid SO from living in town, just 1500' from schools. From the pic on the Advocate, it looks like some of the city is outside this mark. Also, this is a civil law, so someone would have to sue JG/SO to get them to move. Why or can he sue first if he hasn't been damaged? I wouldn't think he would be damaged until he loses money. Is the SO damaged if he can still live in town but not as close to schools? If you or I sue JG/SO to get a SO out, what are yours/my damages? I like the idea, just needs to be a criminal law and not civil. 2cents
ReplyDeleteNuisance (also spelled nocence, through Fr. noisance, nuisance, from Lat. nocere, "to hurt") is a common law tort. It means that which causes offence, annoyance, trouble or injury. A nuisance can be either public (also "common") or private. A public nuisance was defined by English scholar Sir J. F. Stephen as,
ReplyDelete"an act not warranted by law, or an omission to discharge a legal duty, which act or omission obstructs or causes inconvenience or damage to the public in the exercise of rights common to all His Majesty's subjects".[1]
Private nuisance is the interference with the right of specific people. Nuisance is one of the oldest causes of action known to the common law, with cases framed in nuisance going back almost to the beginning of recorded case law. Nuisance signifies that the "right of quiet enjoyment" is being disrupted to such a degree that a tort is being committed.
Thanks webster, >JG HAS BEEN A NUISANCE to this city for tooo long :) Maybe we should pass the "good doctor" a copy of the Bible???
ReplyDeleteThe Bible does not advise a Christian not to sue, but rather not to sue another Christian. Since the city is neither a Christian nor behaving in a Christian manner, it will be spending public funds to defend this charade.
ReplyDeleteDrop dead fred!
ReplyDeleteFred, you state: "Since the city is neither a Christian nor behaving in a Christian manner".
ReplyDeleteI am saddned that those that spend too much time feeling righteous and judging others are a bigger sinner than the person they are judging. Are you really Christian? Or are you Christian to feed your own feelings of insecurity? A true Christian does not need to put others down to lift themselves up.
In the Bible in the book of Matthew 7 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
Come on folks…. We all know that anyone can take one word, or one sentence, or one passage from the Bible and “bend” it to their own meaning to support their own cause.
ReplyDeleteThis is an attempt to help protect the innocent, the children… I don’t think anyone is trying to persecute anyone, only try to protect the innocent children by passing this ordinance. The majority has spoken and the City Council has listened, so the new ordinance passed. That is the way our government is suppose to work, and for those who disagree with the outcome, go to the poles next time any vote out your councilman or councilwoman.
As for me personally, I don’t care if J.G. is making money on his business… but what I do care about is trying to keep our children safe… will this ordinance do that, who knows, but it does help. These Sex Offenders know if they choose to live their lifestyle and are caught, they will be labeled as Sex Offenders and have to report their whereabouts from that time on… I don’t know if you can rehabilitate a Sex Offender, but keeping them an additional 500’ from places that our children congregate is not persecuting them. It is an attempt to help protect our children…
If the special interest groups decide to come into our community and sue because the majority have ask for this ordinance, so be it… there is nothing we can do about that except support the City Council. These special interest groups don’t live in Our Community, we do… it’s up to us to not be bullied by these media-hungry groups.
To the City Council, you did the right thing, you listened to the Majority… and for that I want to thank you.
Vote Smart is right - this issue is based on protecting children and adults from harm. Children need to have safety nets in place for their own protection. Statistics shown that about half of sexual assaults victims were children with 87% being female, stated by David Berenson.
ReplyDeleteCity Council has my support.