>No place for sex offenders to live?

>

Existing Ohio law prohibits convicted sex offenders from residing within 1,000 feet of a school, preschool, and certain licensed daycare centers.

An ad hoc committee of the Greenville City Council has proposed expanding that limit within its municipality to 1,500 feet. Such an expansion would eliminate much, but not all, of Greenville for convicted sex offenders.

Opponents of the proposed ordinance have argued that the change would keep sex offenders from having a place to live, forcing them underground – even invoking images of Miami, Florida, where sex offenders allegedly live under bridges. But what is the truth?

So far, legislation is proposed in the City of Greenville alone. But even if the entire county adopted a 1,500 restriction, the vast majority of the county would still remain eligible for residence by convicted sex offenders.

If such a restriction was imposed throughout the entire county, convicted sex offenders could still reside in parts of Greenville, Arcanum, Versailles, New Madison, Bradford, Ansonia, and Union City – anywhere in Hollansburg, Palestine, Castine, Gordon, Wayne Lakes, Gettysburg, Osgood, Yorkshire, Rossburg, New Weston, and North Star – and in the rural areas of all twenty Darke County Townships.

Well over 90% of Darke County would remain eligible for residence by sex offenders. The bridges won’t be needed – except for the narrative.

Advertisements
  1. #1 by Anonymous on October 8, 2010 - 10:28 am

    >So DJ, what is your point with this article?

  2. #2 by Anonymous on October 8, 2010 - 11:44 am

    >Listen to Act 3 of this edition of This American Life. There are some parallels to Greenville's current conversation regarding sex offenders:http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/407/the-bridge

  3. #3 by Anonymous on October 8, 2010 - 12:28 pm

    >I think the point is, the disgusting wastes of flesh have no right to whine. They can still find somewhere to live, assuming anyone is greedy enough to rent to these people. Personally, it should be 5,000 feet of anywhere children could play and any violations punishable on the spot. Children are too precious to even risk it.

  4. #4 by Phil Davison on October 8, 2010 - 12:36 pm

    >I think the point is incredibly clear.JG continually claims that this change will lead to massive homelessness with SOs living under bridges, in alleys, etc. Even with this change, there are ample opportunities for the individuals to live in the area.

  5. #5 by Anonymous on October 8, 2010 - 12:49 pm

    >6:28, DJ's point is to remove one of the planks in Graham's argument. The visual aid speaks volumes. The point is well taken.

  6. #6 by Anonymous on October 8, 2010 - 12:55 pm

    >Sex offenders should be in jail, period.

  7. #7 by Darke Journal on October 8, 2010 - 1:07 pm

    >Comments 3, 4, and 5 have it figured out.

  8. #8 by Anonymous on October 8, 2010 - 1:17 pm

    >Greenville is not that big of town & that is why the 1500' takes up the city. Personally, I was thinking of the children's safety not where the line hit on the map. This is the first time that I have seen the map. Why do they have to be in the city limits? Because Mr. Graham says so? This guy is playing with fire. There are still areas in Darke County that are not close to schools, parks, sports fields & day care. These guys committed the crime not all the citizens of Greenville.

  9. #9 by os on October 8, 2010 - 1:37 pm

    >POINT MADE TO ANYONE WITH A BRAIN AND THE SENSE TO PROTECT OUR CHILDREN! Plenty of places to put these disgusting perverts. Better find a realtor,JG!

  10. #10 by Phil Davison on October 8, 2010 - 1:55 pm

    >"Why do they have to be in the city limits?"because that's where cheap property is… at least that's what he said was the reasoning for buying in the neighborhood he is in.

  11. #11 by Ditto on October 8, 2010 - 1:58 pm

    >Seriously 6:28??? You have to ask what the point is!!! WOW

  12. #12 by Anonymous on October 8, 2010 - 2:26 pm

    >I would prefer to see these people not be put in small places like Gettysburg, Yorkshire, Hollensburg, etc. too. There are smaller children that live in these little towns, and they deserve to be able to play in their yard. If they must be someplace, put them waayyyy out in the country, next to nothing.

  13. #13 by Anonymous on October 8, 2010 - 2:44 pm

    >Sex offenders need to live in a cell, not in the community!

  14. #14 by Darke Journal on October 8, 2010 - 2:48 pm

    >10:26 … I don't disagree with you, but was merely pointing out how ridiculous it is to claim these guys will have no place to live.

  15. #15 by os on October 8, 2010 - 2:48 pm

    >He won't go to those places beacuse they won't "play ball" with him! He'd be too skeeeert. Greenville, he can "toy" with through politics…

  16. #16 by Anonymous on October 8, 2010 - 3:35 pm

    >I really dont think sending them out to the country side is a good idea, because as was mentioned, they'd be next to nothing. Well there are still kids out in side of town not to mention bicyclers and joggers… If these people are all alone out there then, whats going to make them think they someone will see them commit there next crime? At least in town there are sets of eyes on them…

  17. #17 by Anonymous on October 8, 2010 - 4:56 pm

    >if only our city council had any balls to do what is right.

  18. #18 by Anonymous on October 8, 2010 - 5:35 pm

    >Society's first concern should always be to protect the innocent. Put these sick adults out in a country setting, maybe "death valley" with mules and horses and let them play in the crap there!!

  19. #19 by Anonymous on October 8, 2010 - 5:56 pm

    >Citizens of Greenville city council can not do this alone we have to push this as citizens of greenville for our children and the ones that have been mollested And another way to stop it is if you donate to any organisations ask them not to give it to john graham for Ex-fellons or Sex-offenders.If you give money to a church ask them not to donate it to John Graham.

  20. #20 by Anonymous on October 8, 2010 - 7:51 pm

    >We know how to fix a dog so that he won't go jump the bones of a female, why not treat these guys the same, they are lower than a dog because they know better.

  21. #21 by Anonymous on October 8, 2010 - 8:25 pm

    >They are already in the countryside. Your kids & grandkids might not be safe riding bicycles alone. This whole SO infiltration has been a well kept secret for the whole county up until now. You will not believe how many people have not known about these guys & where they were until now. Plus, a lot of older senior citizens, like they had at the council meeting, cannot even fathom what some of these guys have done. Spell it out clear that some of these victums have been toddlers, children or young adults and they're horrified. A "2 or 3 yr old raped" takes on a whole new meaning doesn't it? An "8- 12 yr. old raped" takes on a whole new meaning doesn't it? It happens. I say, "let's try to give these kids a "First Chance" and try to protect them.

  22. #22 by Anonymous on October 8, 2010 - 9:51 pm

    >Rumor has it that there going to suggest get the citizens to get a petition up for the mays ballot and put it up for vote I say the city caused it they need to take care of it. the rumor was floating aruond up at city council meeting.

  23. #23 by Anonymous on October 8, 2010 - 10:06 pm

    >If Graham disagrees with our comments, why doesn’t he come out of his hole and debate like a man instead of hiding behind right wing preachers and the threat of using the ACLU. Centrist (neither left nor right) Christians put children and the elderly first. Speak up Graham or are you just waiting for court paid for by the ACLU (maybe they will but they maybe they will take the side of the children and elderly). We are tired of talking to each other; we want a dialogue or a debate. There has been no compromise or suggestions for compromise from Graham at all– – it’s his way or the highway. So far all Graham has been about is “Give to my cause – the state will give to my cause- I’ll locate in long established communities with children if I please and if you don’t like any of this, I will take you to a court – oh, by the way -God doesn’t approve of the people of Greenville.” He has gotten a lot of mileage out of other people’s dollars.Summary – come out of your hole and debate like a man.

  24. #24 by Anonymous on October 8, 2010 - 10:23 pm

    >The City Council caused this problem by allowing the first group home to be established. They need to fix it. Fix it or be voted out. Garage sales/business signs are illegal yet sex offenders are ok.

  25. #25 by Anonymous on October 8, 2010 - 11:49 pm

    >We sure do live in a messed up world!

  26. #26 by Anonymous on October 9, 2010 - 1:53 am

    >Does it really matter where these SO's live? I mean if one of them has made up their mind that they are going to, God forbid, strike again… aren't they going to go where the children are? I have 3 daughters and I live in the country where a SO lives just a mile down the road. Who's going to protect my children? I AM, THE PARENT! I am in no way shape or form defending JG or the SO's, I think they should all be castrated and left for dead, but is 500 feet really going to solve anything? I just think that parents need to take on a little more liability and responsibility in protecting their families instead of putting it all on the city and somewhat wasting tax-payers money to move an invisible protection line 500 feet. ?? I'm just trying to understand this all… no offense intended to anyone!!

  27. #27 by Billy Bob on October 9, 2010 - 1:57 am

    >Legislation has not been proposed, only a committee report was submitted. The council failed to take a vote on accepting the report or not. Only after that would legislation be prepared and presented to council for a vote on that then.Another little known fact is that the state law only states how close to one of the described areas an offender can live. They are not, I repeat NOT restricted from going to a city park, attending a function at a school or going anywhere they desire. It only restricts where they can live and call home.

  28. #28 by Anonymous on October 9, 2010 - 2:04 am

    >No doubt about it 7:49

  29. #29 by Anonymous on October 9, 2010 - 2:26 am

    >Is 500 feet really going to solve anything? If a SO should ever decide to strike again, God forbid, he will go to where the children are, parks, pool, just taking bike rides??. I have 3 daughters and live in the country where a SO lives just a mile down the road. Who's going to protect my children and all the children that live in the country?? I AM! THE PARENT!! I'm not defending JG or any SO by any means, but I think the biggest part of the protection should come within the childs own household. I don't know what the point is of moving an invisible protection line 500 feet, other than to stir up conflict in the city and waste tax payers money. There's all kinds of creeps out there and every child should be protected first by the parents! I'm just trying to understand all this… no offense intended to anyone. 🙂

  30. #30 by Anonymous on October 9, 2010 - 2:36 am

    >@1026the change in boundary would effectively shut down JG's program.

  31. #31 by Anonymous on October 9, 2010 - 2:59 am

    >but only moving the residence of a SO does not inhibit the SO… as stated by Billy Bob, they are not restricted from public places wherever children may be. Wouldn't having a designated home such as JG's program provides, allow the citizens to be more aware of their surroundings while in that area? As opposed to dispursing them all over the county/city and not feeling safe in any particular area? What if JG just buys another home outside the boundary? Do we keep moving the boundary??

  32. #32 by Anonymous on October 9, 2010 - 3:47 am

    >Whether a person is a crminal or a sex offender they are homeless and are being imported into this community. So why are individuals and originations of Darke County supporting programs such as the Good Samaritan Home (John Graham) which is throwing money at the problem without having any end results instead of investing money towards prevent and end homelessness in Darke County. The real concern should be taking care of Darke residents first.

  33. #33 by Curt on October 9, 2010 - 12:21 pm

    >10:59, so you are ok with out of county child molesters and rapists being dragged into Greenville? That is what Graham does. You think thats ok?

  34. #34 by Anonymous on October 9, 2010 - 1:32 pm

    >@ CurtI don't think that's ok at all. But is moving the line 500 feet going to shut it down completely? or just give him more incentive to buy more property outside the boundary? I don't know, maybe I'm way off here…

  35. #35 by Anonymous on October 9, 2010 - 2:18 pm

    >Do Greenville residents want the city to become known as the Sex Offender City?????? I think not! It is one thing, for a city resident to return after serving his sentence and quite another, to import sex offenders from all over the state. It is my opinion that these homes have been established as a moneymaker and good-hearted people have been hoodwinked into supporting them. What a sham!! The city council needs to pass the ordinance and soon.

  36. #36 by os on October 9, 2010 - 2:36 pm

    >I agree with 11:47. OUR CITIZENS come first. It is NOT our job to help jg find a place to live. He wanted the job, now he can work for it! jg has PLENTY of options. I think that the more sex offenders live in 1 place, the MORE distance should be required.With all the pervs he has crammed together in one house, THAT house should have 2500 to 3000 feet on it's restriction-The more pervs,the MORE ROOM I would want AWAY from them!!

  37. #37 by Anonymous on October 9, 2010 - 6:00 pm

    >Why are we discriminating against the rest of the criminal minds when they are released from prison? I think we should bring in a few gangsters. We are really short on murders especially mass murderers. Oh, we are short on drug pushers too. Don't forget the robbers. We need a little more criminal activity in Greenville. It's called job security for the police force & criminal justice system. Is this really what the city wants? Some people just don't get the point… it's not that parents don't have responsibility… it's that they are being BROUGHT IN purposefully. There is NO GUARANTEE they won't commit their crime again. Not one has said," I'm sorry I hurt your child or you lady." Not one has said, "God saved me and I'm a new man." I've been waiting for weeks to hear these guys confess their sin. I haven't seen one or heard from one. Only God can change a life and give a second chance. That still doesn't take away the consequences of things done because these crimes committed were deliberate actions not mistakes.

  38. #38 by Anonymous on October 9, 2010 - 8:26 pm

    >10:59 so far is one of the few that is using some common sense in this matter, increasing the boundry will not accomplish anything, but false sense of security.

  39. #39 by Anonymous on October 9, 2010 - 9:02 pm

    >I am just glad I don't live in Greenville. You won't pass a school levy. You won't let certain people live in town. You seem to welcome drug traficing and section 8 housing if it is financially rewarding to a few, but be a reformed sex offender and you are not welcome.What a group of jokers – you people deserve each other.

  40. #40 by Anonymous on October 10, 2010 - 2:37 pm

    >There is no such thing as a reformed sex offender, please stop showing off your ignorance. From the sounds of it, you have experience with such low life's. I'll be willing to bet, Greenville is a better place because YOU don't live here either. Now run along troll.

  41. #41 by Anonymous on October 10, 2010 - 4:56 pm

    >5:02 Im glad you dont live here as well!

  42. #42 by Anonymous on October 10, 2010 - 6:52 pm

    >An incarcerated sex offender is not a reformed sex offender. They have just been put away where they could not hurt anyone else for a time and then released back into society. There is one that lives close to someone I know. I, so much, wish he could live next door to every supporter. I'd be willing to bet on a 3/4% turn around of opinion.

  43. #43 by Anonymous on October 10, 2010 - 7:01 pm

    >i understand the people of greenville's struggle with the issue… but what you are effectively saying is "let's send them to the other towns…" we don't want them there as much as you do!!! and many of the small towns have schools right at the center of town so sex offenders would be near anyway. greenville can't expect to throw its garbage out and expect the rest of the county to pick it up.

  44. #44 by Darke Journal on October 10, 2010 - 7:34 pm

    >3:01 … we are saying that each town should take care of its own sex offenders, rather than greenville being the dumping ground for everyboldy else.i'd prefer to have no sex offenders here at all, but i haven't heard anybody say we should ban our own residents who commit sex offenses.this action would not even be contemplated likely except for someone who has chosen to do something as outrageous as to move sex offender housing into a residential neighborhood – arguing that 4 sex offenders in a house constitutes "a family." did you know that was the argument?and even with the proposed action, almost all of darke county remains available for residence.for all of you who are saying "you cretins just want to drive the sex offenders out of town" … all we are saying is that there are some consequences (such a maybe 3-4% of Darke County being off limits) as a result of committing a sex offense against some poor innocent victim.

  45. #45 by Anonymous on October 10, 2010 - 9:24 pm

    >3:01.. THEIR NOT OUR OFFENDERS!Let the towns that spawned them take them back. Why should they be dumped here, we're not your dump either. And anyone who thinks SO's can be reformed is either naive or ignorant. The repeat rate for SO's is through the chart. There have been no studies shown that any SO can ever be classified as treated.

  46. #46 by Anonymous on October 11, 2010 - 2:50 am

    >My home is right in the middle of all of thies homes ,Everyone keeps talking about 1 home , There are 3 homes not to mention another one is geting ready to open , and his own home has housed them too! Thats 5 homes all in a 2 block area , Now Fathers picture your self leaving your wife and kids early morning ,every day ,knowing that your home is surrounded by John Grahams sex offenders and you cant do a dam thing about it. The stress is unreal and this has been going on for 7 or 8 years! Most of the people as of the last 6 months just started finding out about it. The worst thing about it all is that They come and go so fast you cant possibly keep track of any of them. Its like a bad dream that I cant awake from!

  47. #47 by Anonymous on October 11, 2010 - 3:04 am

    >10:50-Thank you for you opinion. All these people that are "for" importing jg's offenders are not having to live next door to them. YOU should be heard-I'm glad people are finding out about it. You have been dealing with it far too long!

  48. #48 by Anonymous on October 11, 2010 - 12:24 pm

    >The real problem is there are so many SO's coming into the Darke County area. Greenville is a dumping ground. It is time for some articles in all our papers on safety. If you don't believe me read this article about the SO who broke into this womans house… (http://www.komonews.com/news/local/104581299.html )First, thing to do if possible, remain calm and get away if possible. Lock doors and windows and use safety devices such as alarms, bells on the doors or anything to alert you. Dogs are a good deterent because they bark.

  49. #49 by Anonymous on October 11, 2010 - 1:06 pm

    >Wow – never realized how "smart" you all are from Greenville. There is no such thing as a reformed sex offender- Brilliant! Is such thing as a reformed drunk driver? We allow them back on the roads everyday and don't think twice about it and they KILL people everyday.I am going to assume that many of you would label yourselves as "Christians". Jesus taught us to forgive (7×70). Why not try a little forgiveness and acceptance. These "SO's" made a bad choice, but so did Paul before He was reformed and God forgave him. Look at King David and his sin, Moses and his; it goes on and on, but I know you are all better than them, you live in Greenville.

  50. #50 by Anonymous on October 11, 2010 - 2:39 pm

    >I also live in this area and have several kids, In May JG had 12 out of town SO living in these 3 homes. JG supporters do not live in this area of town because who in their right mind would want to live near 12 SOs and JG is turning the SOs every 30 to 60 days because he only get money from the State for the first 30 days I can't send my kids out to play with out my spouse or myself watching them. These SO walk by looking at my kids like a pork chop. Also JG paid himself big money last year….I ask you who would want to live in this area of Greenville with a family???? City Council you have let this go on to long……… don't let this up to the voters that is why we elected you….. Do the right thing the citizens of Greenville have your back don't listen to the left wing nuts and the liberal media.

  51. #51 by Kathy on October 11, 2010 - 4:56 pm

    >How cynical you are 9:06. I believe that we are “Smart” choosing to take a stand on moving the residency buffer to 1500 feet. First of all, this issue has NOTHING to do with religion and you are no better than those you are talking about, for you cannot accept other opinions in this matter and fail to see the point of this NOT BEING ABOUT IF A SEX OFFENDER CAN BE REFORMED OR NOT! This is about a program that owns 5 homes within a three block radius of each other and just outside by a few hundred feet of the State’s residency requirement from a school. Obviously the state felt the need to PROTECT THE CHILDREN, when the residency requirement was enacted. I will also tell you that I DO LABEL MY SELF A CHRISTIAN and you or no one else has THE RIGHT to tell me otherwise.

  52. #52 by Anonymous on October 11, 2010 - 5:04 pm

    >9:06 AM God distroyed a whole city over the sin of homosexuality, Sodom & Gomorah. Why aren't the liberal preachers willing to forgive the citizens for wanting safety? We're not talking about forgiveness here. We are talking about being a dumping ground. I think the community is willing to help their own. It just got way out of hand because of greed. I think it would be nice to not put on a holier than thou attitude. Why is it you guys never think of the babies & children?

  53. #53 by Anonymous on October 11, 2010 - 5:15 pm

    >9:06.. You're an idiot with obvious issues and an obvious soft spot for sex offenders. It is well accepted common knowledge among psychological experts that sex offenders will repeat, and there is no treatment, and no cure for those who rape, and offend against children. So your comparison is flawed. Many people quit drinking and never drink again, the rate of sex offenders who never offend is minuscule in comparison. I guess never let a thing like the facts get in the way of your hate for our town and your love for sex offenders.

  54. #54 by Anonymous on October 12, 2010 - 6:03 pm

    >I am telling you if you want the sex – offender law passed you need to come to the next council meeting and send them emails and tell them to do there job and what's right for our children let them know we as the citizens we dont want to vote on this we want city council to vote on it and get it passed. thank you craig francishere is the emails for city council and the mayor.mike bowersemail mbowers@cityofgreenville.org kathleen floyd email kfloyd@cityofgreenville.org roy harrisonemail rharrison@cityofgreenville.orgleon rogersemail lrogers@cityofgreenville.orgjohn baumgardneremail jbaumgardner@cityofgreenville.orgtodd oliver email toliver@cityofgreenville.orgdoug schmidt email dschmidt@cityofgreenville.orgtracy tryon ttryon@cityofgreenville.orgemail them every day till they do there job and pass this new law.

  55. #55 by Anonymous on October 13, 2010 - 1:52 am

    >THANK YOU @2:03! They all need a few emails! I am noting each and every name-If they don't want tossed out, they need to listen to the citizens they are to be PROTECTING. The neighbors that have to endure life next door have my sympathy. THEY can tell you what it's like. Let's ask them!

  56. #56 by Anonymous on October 13, 2010 - 11:12 am

    >US Marshall's service has started "Operation Guardian" They know the seriousness of some of these SO's actions. So, I really don't see what the problem is with the city council.Link… http://www.whiotv.com/news/25369623/detail.html

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: