Jax Council panel defers bill changing sexual predator distance requirements - Florida Politics

Jax Council panel defers bill changing sexual predator distance requirements

Jacksonville City Council bill that would lower distance requirements between the residences of sexual predators and day care centers/schools was deferred Monday in its first committee.

Current ordinance mandates a 2,500 feet distance; the bill would lower the distance to 1,500 feet, which is still higher than the state requirement of 1,000 feet.

Councilman Bill Gulliford, the sponsor of the legislation, said in September that this legislation was driven by two women in Mayport who want to open a day care center. But since it is 2,380 feet from the residence of a sexual predator “as the crow flies,” they aren’t permitted to.

“Kneejerk” legislation currently in place, though well-intended, has the “unintended consequence” of “accommodating sexual predators,” Gulliford said.

“If you took the over 300 sexual predators in Jacksonville, drew a radius line 2500 feet from their homes,” Gulliford said, “you would blanket the whole dadgum city.”

“When you draw a diameter around a sexual predator,” Gulliford added Monday, “it’s almost a mile.”

There are 345 sexual predators, and 1,850 sexual offenders, in Duval County.

The bill — with its pyrotechnic subject matter — was always destined to be a heavy lift, and committee discussion reflected that.

Councilman Aaron Bowman said “this is an interesting bill, and when I first read it, there was no way I’d put my name on it.”

Councilman Garrett Dennis, who is not a political ally of Gulliford’s, withheld support.

“What we’re seeing over and over again in the news with the Harvey Weinstein and so forth,” Dennis said, “I cannot and will not support relaxing rules.”

A member of the sexual offender registry spoke in favor of this legislation, saying that “these policies are often counterproductive and make our city less safe,” saying that sexual offender recidivism rates are low, at 3.5 percent, and that the current “unconstitutional” ordinance makes finding a place to live “virtually impossible.”


  1. As citizens of this County and this Country, we must not allow people who decide to become a criminal hold the community hostage. These type of ordinances hurt the community and the academic warfare of or children. We must find other innovative ways of deal with these sex offenders without costing the children, parents and the City -revenue.

  2. “Out of 853,408 Registered Sex Offenders, How Many Are Actually Dangerous?”

    Allen avers that “these registries are especially important because of the high risk of re-offense by some of these offenders” (emphasis added). As I note in [this July 2011] Reason piece, recidivism rates for sex offenders seem to have been greatly exaggerated. In any case, if protecting potential victims is the raison d’etre for the registries, shouldn’t they be limited to people who are likely to commit crimes against others?

    I bet if you looked at the “dagum map” that Gulliford mentions, you would find 35% of the offenders are children (under age of consent) and the majority of all offenders are not “sexual predators” as Gulliford also avers.

Show Buttons
Hide Buttons