About 3,200 registered sex offenders live in Fort Worth, but the city has no ordinance restricting where they live.
Officials want to change that.
Fort Worth city staff recommend council members create an ordinance that bars certain sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of child safety zones, which Texas law defines as schools, playgrounds, public pools, youth centers and other such places.
The ordinance would apply to those offenders whose victims were under 17 years old, Trey Qualls, senior assistant city attorney, said at a Public Safety Committee meeting Oct. 14.
About 1 in every 315 Fort Worth residents is a registered sex offender — a slightly lower rate than the statewide average of 1 in every 293 residents, Qualls said.
“To those currently sitting in prison who may be getting out soon who are considering where they’re gonna move, I want Fort Worth to be the first city they cross off,” council member Charles Lauersdorf said at the meeting.
How many registered sex offenders live in Fort Worth?
Of the city’s 3,201 registered sex offenders:
- 2,454 had child victims under 17 years old.
- 877 of those with child victims were on supervised release.
- 1,577 with child victims currently have no residency restrictions.
Lauersdorf said he wants an even stricter rule in Fort Worth, one that would bar them from living within 2,000 feet of child safety zones — higher than the state recommended 1,000 feet.
No Texas law mandates where sex offenders live. When sex offenders are put on parole and supervised release, where they can live is restricted on a case-by-case basis, Qualls said.
An ordinance from Fort Worth could not be applied retroactively, meaning sex offenders already living close to a child safety zone could not be forced to move.
While a few other Texas cities have created 2,000-foot restrictions, the ordinance could open Fort Worth up to lawsuits from sex offenders, Qualls said. A city can restrict where offenders live, but it cannot legally outright “banish” them, he said.
The five present council members favored an ordinance, but some said they were wary that 2,000-foot restrictions could have unintended consequences.
Council member Mia Hall said she was hesitant to place restrictions more than 1,000 feet because it could create “hot spots” of sex offenders living in low-income communities that might not have many nearby parks or schools.
Hall was joined by council member Elizabeth Beck, who said she was concerned about lawsuits against Fort Worth. A 1,000-foot ordinance already restricts most of the city, she said.
The two council members said they would consider 2,000-foot restrictions if further research showed it was practical, legal and wouldn’t negatively affect certain communities.
“We need to make sure we’re not having unintended consequences in a hastily applied crackdown,” Beck said.
Lauersdorf said he wasn’t concerned about registered sex offenders suing Fort Worth.
“There’s times when we could do better than other (cities), and we can be the city that others look to,” he said.
Registered sex offenders who violate the ordinance would face a class C misdemeanor. If found guilty, they would face state felony charges, Qualls said.
He said the city could also impose “rental restrictions” that prohibit landlords from renting to certain sex offenders at specific locations.
What do restrictions look like in other cities?
Dallas: Does not allow offenders whose victims were under 17 to “remain at or near” child safety zones.
San Antonio: Does not allow any offender to live within 1,000 feet of a park, or loiter within 300 feet of a park.
Arlington: Does not allow “habitual offenders” to live within 1,000 feet of specified zones.
Everman: Does not allow offenders whose victims were under 17 to live or rent within 1,000 feet of specified zones.
Keller: Does not allow offenders whose victim was under 17 to live or rent within 2,000 feet of specified zones.
Mansfield: Does not allow any offender to live or rent within 1,000 feet of specified zones, and this year added restrictions to multiple offenders living at the same dwelling.
A ‘one size fits all approach’ draws hesitancy
Council member Carlos Flores said that, as a parent, he wants the maximum distance possible. However, he is concerned by a one-size-fits-all approach that could make it difficult for some offenders to access their jobs and could stretch law enforcement resources.
Many cities have exceptions to their ordinances, such as for those who committed crimes as a minor and have since moved on, Qualls said.
Council member Michael Crain noted that state legislators frequently push for statewide limits on where offenders can live. Advocacy groups have researched how to approach such restrictions and possible exemptions, he said.
“We should get some input there just to make sure it doesn’t overly burden some people that are probably good in the community, that have been adjudicated,” Crain said.
He stressed that the council wants to protect children from the most extreme offenders, but a blanket restriction requires looking at the issue from every perspective.
Qualls said city staff would research what wider restrictions could look like and present further findings before proposing an official ordinance.
Drew Shaw is a government accountability reporter for the Fort Worth Report. Contact him at drew.shaw@fortworthreport.org or @shawlings601.
At the Fort Worth Report, news decisions are made independently of our board members and financial supporters. Read more about our editorial independence policy here.
This article first appeared on Fort Worth Report and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.