07/31/2011
By Joseph Cress
Newville Mayor Becky Barrick plans to veto an ordinance council adopted last week that would restrict where registered sex offenders can live within the borough.
In explaining why, Barrick referred to a recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that struck down an Allegheny County ordinance as too restrictive and in violation of state law.
That ordinance prohibited sex offenders registered under Megan's Law from living within 2,500 feet of any location where children tend to gather.
The Newville ordinance prohibits registered offenders from living within 500 feet of any school, church, after-school program facility, child care facility, public park, recreation facility or library.
Five of the six council members voted in favor of adopting the ordinance Tuesday. Council President William Toth was absent from the meeting.
Under the law, Barrick has 10 days from the date of adoption to either sign or veto an ordinance. No action either way means the ordinance automatically becomes law at the expiration of the grace period.
Mapping out opposition
Barrick said Friday she plans to submit a veto message to Borough Manager Fred Potzer explaining her opposition to the ordinance. It would be the first use of her veto power since she became mayor in January 2010.
Council could vote Aug. 30 on whether to override her veto.
A majority plus one - five of the six council members - would be needed to uphold the ordinance, Potzer said.
Even if council overrides the veto, the ordinance would apply only to sex offenders who move into the borough after the new restrictions take effect. The ordinance would not apply to those already living within the borough, so they would be grandfathered in and not required to move.
- Residency restrictions (where someone sleeps at night) have no affect on when, where or if an ex-offender will re-offend, it only pushes them a way from family, support, and into homelessness, in some cases. There is no proof what-so-ever that residency laws protect anybody.
At the meeting last week, Barrick insisted borough staff provide her with a map of Newville showing where registered offenders could live in town under the 500-foot restriction.
While the borough ordinance involves a shorter radius than what the high court struck down, all that is relative, considering Newville is so much smaller in area than most Allegheny County communities, Barrick said.
"Our town is so small, it would be difficult to restrict them from a certain distance," she said.
Futile?
Shortly after the high court decision, Newville received a memo from the Pennsylvania State Association of Boroughs advising its members that any municipality that either has or is contemplating a similar ordinance should consult with its solicitor about rescinding such an ordinance.
At the meeting last week, council Vice President Ed Sinkovitz asked borough solicitor Marcus McKnight III whether adopting this ordinance would be an exercise in futility.
In response, McKnight said that council may want to err on the side of children by adopting an ordinance that sends a clear message to sex offenders.
- Read my statements above. Hell, you could use the same argument to force them out of the United States.
