I wanted to discuss a mail item homeowners in Crain’s Run recently received. This mail item is a ballot for a new amendment to our HOA rules.
The amendment would do two things: First, it would place a residency restriction on all Crain’s Run land parcels to bar
class II and class III sex offenders from living here. Second, the amendment would change the number of Crain’s Run homeowners needed in a meeting to constitute “
quorum” (
A quorum is the minimum number of members of a legislature necessary to conduct the business of that group.). I intend to address both of these issues and show both sides so that we, as voters and homeowners, are better informed.
Concerning the restriction on residency, I have asked HOA Board about the issue, and I have done some research on it as well. If you were not aware, we do currently have offenders in Crain’s Run. You can learn more about this at a number of websites
site 1,
site 2,
site 3.
A great informative slide show on the topic.
Whose residency would this restriction affect?
- · Class II offenders. Examples include persons convicted of sex trafficking, abusive sexual contact, and use of a minor in a sexual performance.
- · Class III offenders. Examples include persons convicted of aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse whether against an adult or a minor, or abusive sexual contact against a minor under the age of 13.
- · It would apply to any current resident that has to register as a Class II or III offender after this amendment would go in to effect.
- · It would apply to any Class II/III registered offender who wants to move in to the neighborhood.
Whose residency does this not affect?
- · This change would not affect any current Class II or III registered residents.
- · Class I offenders. Examples include persons convicted of possession of child pornography, menacing by stalking with sexual motivation, or child enticement with sexual motivation.
I asked if this would restrict who I could sell my home to, and the good news is that it does not. I, as the now former homeowner, would not be liable to the HOA if I sold my home to a registered offender. However, I may be open to litigation from the offender for selling that individual a property that technically he or she cannot live in.
I also asked who paid for the lawsuit that the HOA would have to enter into in order to enforce this residency restriction. In turn, I was told roughly that the “‘sexual offender regulation may be difficult to enforce.” Enforcement would “be at the discretion of the board of trustees in office at each case to decide how much, if any, HOA funds they want to spend. If the Trustees were to enforce the restriction against a home owner we would have to take them to court. In the end a Judge would make the final decision on enforcement.” So it will be up to the Trustees to enforce this (or any) bylaw at their discretion. I had not asked, but I imagine that if this rule is not evenly applied in all cases, we could open ourselves to litigation. This restriction is much easier to enforce in a rental situation or when a son or daughter who is an offender moves back in with mom and dad than when the offender is actually the homeowner.
Sex Offender Residency Laws Inaccurately Target the “Stranger Danger Myth”Yet another harmful effect of residency restriction laws is that they promote the“stranger danger myth,” that most sexual assaults are committed by strangers.128 Infact, most sexual assaults against adults and children (eighty to ninety-five percent)are committed by someone the victim knows.129 Fewer than ten percent of childmolestations are committed by strangers.130 Specifically, relatives, friends, babysitters,authority figures, and supervisors of children are more likely than strangers tocommit sexual assaults on children.131 Yet, most of the public’s focus is on thestranger sex criminal132 and most of the legislation is made with this myth in mind.Parents and children see sex offenders as “big bad m[e]n”133 and as “rapists lurkingbehind bushes”134 even though victims usually know their attackers. Parentsworrying about stranger child molesters are not in the position to protect theirchildren from non-strangers.135 As long as the focus remains on strangerperpetrators, the majority of sex crimes are not prevented.136By focusing on offenders the victim does not know, residency legislationpromotes a false sense of security.137 Parents may feel that laws preventing offendersfrom residing near schools or child-care facilities keep their children safe.
If this correct, this rule would be effective against about 10% of the possible dangers that face our children while ignoring the remaining cases committed by relatives, friends, babysitters, authority figures, and supervisors of children. The rule could be worse than merely being ineffective as it would also give residents a false sense of security. Some issues also pointed out about these rules is that it only affects permanent residency, so people visiting for short-term visits are in no way restricted.
During my research, I found out that the HOA’s lawyer is recommending this change to 100% of his HOA and condo association clients. While I was unable to get the names of the surrounding communities that have these rules in place, Towne Properties reports that they have other clients that already have these rules in place. So, if passed we will be bring ourselves in line with other communities. I also talked to a
local realtor and she said that a rule like this would be a benefit she could use to advertise Crain’s Run homes.
Pros
- Stops new Class II and Class III offenders from moving in
- Forces Class II and Class III offenders that are not grandfathered in to move out
- Selling point for Realtors
- Brings us in line with some other local neighborhoods
- Sounds safer
- Highly recommended by Crain’s Run Lawyers
Cons
- Only effective with 10% of offenders
- Enforcement is at the discretion of the HOA Board
- Class I offenders are unaffected
- Potential legal expense for the HOA
- Potential increase in HOA fees
- Increased liability exposure for HOA and home sellers.
Part II will cover the quorum change, and issue with how this ballot was constructed.
