Sunday, March 3, 2013


Like the woman in this article who runs the nonprofit organization that advocates for the rights of those convicted of sex crimes, we acknowledge that sex offenders are not a popular part of society. But building pocket parks for the explicit purpose of driving registered sex offenders out of a neighborhood is kind of messed up. As the article reports, State law prohibits sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a park or school: by building the park, a community could effectively force sex offenders to leave. Los Angeles is building three - two of them in the community of Wilmington, which apparently has become something of a dumping ground for sex offenders thanks to its lack of parks and schools. 

In fairness, the core of the problem is the State law itself, whose restrictions have "resulted in a proliferation of group homes in acceptable areas that house large numbers of them." But it's important to  remember that sex offenders 1) have to live somewhere, and 2) have certain constitutional rights. 

Where will they live? The article quotes Councilman Joe Buscaino, who, in classic NIMBY spirit, said that he isn't sure, but that he would like them to leave his district. 


  1. right when I saw this article, I knew I'd be seeing it on your blog.

  2. NIMBY-ism is a complex matter -- as complex as our attachment to the "core territory" of our homes. I've been trying to understand this phenomenon in Australia, my home country. Thansk for opening up the conversation, as controversial as it may be. for my work, see: Thanks! Wendy Sarkissian (Australia)