Current Conditions
22°F - CLEAR
Columbia says no to sex offenders
Officials hope to bar home from borough
Intelligencer Journal
Published: Jul 15, 2008
02:01 EST
Columbia
By TOM KNAPP, Staff

Tom Armstrong's home for sex offenders isn't welcome in Columbia Borough.

Armstrong, whose first halfway house was chased out of Conestoga Township earlier this year, is now on thin ice in Marietta Borough. The former state representative is presently housing three sex offenders in his own Marietta home.

But Armstrong recently told Marietta officials the situation was a temporary fix until a permanent property for the program is secured in Columbia.

That's news to Columbia officials.

"As far as we know, no, that is not the case," council president Sandra Duncan said Monday.

Columbia Borough manager Norman Meiskey said the borough "is doing everything legally possible to protect the children of this borough from any sexual predator."

Mayor Leo Lutz was even more direct.

"We want to send a clear message to Mr. Armstrong," he said. "We don't want you in Columbia. Please go elsewhere."

The program Armstrong began in Conestoga Township was ordered out earlier this summer because it did not comply with local zoning ordinances. Marietta sent Armstrong a cease-and-desist order on June 16 for violating borough codes.

Armstrong defended his right to house the men in his home, although he also said his wife and daughter were currently staying outside the area with a sick relative.

Columbia officials now want to make sure Armstrong's halfway house doesn't get a foothold there.

"There are avenues that he could take legally," Meiskey said. "But to the degree legally possible, no stone is unturned at this point. … We will do whatever we can as a borough to make sure that everyone is protected."

Lutz said Columbia officials, residents and business owners are working very hard "to change the image of this community. Something like this would not work with what we're trying to do. So we don't want it."

The borough is working with state legislators, the prison board and other county officials to try to block Armstrong from moving into Columbia, Lutz said.

"These people need to live somewhere," he said, "but I think it's a unanimous thought that we don't want these folks in Columbia Borough."

If it's not possible to bar them from the borough entirely, Lutz said, they still hope to restrict what portions of the borough would be open to them.

"We have spent an inordinate amount of time in dealing with this issue," said Councilwoman Mary Wickenheiser. "We will do everything possible and legal that we can to contain it and prevent it. … We are determined to stay on top of this."

Duncan said public outcry "is important in combating this kind of situation. … Keep this a hot-button item in all of your conversations. Speak out on it."

Armstrong did not attend a Monday evening meeting of Columbia Borough Council. But several residents did speak out against the plan.

"Keep Tom Armstrong out," said Louise Berg of 745 Walnut St.

Donald Haines of 451 Walnut St. called Armstrong's halfway house a "potential blemish on our community."

"If something like this does happen in our community, it's going to set back all of the progress that we have made," Haines said.

E-mail: tknapp@lnpnews.com


Recent Posts
Showing 5 most recent comments out of 30 total TalkBack comments about this article
View full comments | Comment on this article
QUOTE(eaglerick @ Jul 15 2008, 02:22 PM)

85 living on the east side of the city is more than an offender here or there - its 85 that you do not know where they are or what help they are getting. I agree that finding a suitable environment and housing situation is essential to the success of the program and for the comfort of the community. I'll agree to respectfully disagree Milton as I cannot agree that putting it in Manheim Township along 501 or Fruitville Pike (remember the PO Office in East Pete Fiasco) increases societies safety.
It will increase the volume of the argument though


God forbid we put something in Township!
When they are not lumped together, the community can adsorb the impact, and we all know where they are by our trusty Meghan's law website. Lets say we place 15-20 sex offenders in a residential neighborhood together in one house, as is Armstrong's plan. Sure we know where they all are, but who wants to live next door? Better yet, who want's to buy a home in that imeadiate vacinity? Property values are certain to slump. However, when you have one sex offender living quietly in an apratment somewhere, even in a residential neighborhood, it goes by rather quietly. Halfway houses of the nature will only work properly in a more rural setting...

Milton
QUOTE(Hope @ Jul 15 2008, 11:58 AM)

Ron, too bad you can't stick to your word.


Hope - I was talking about going to Allentown and that I was leaving that day!

You attack attack because you were WRONG and don't want to admit. Sigh. Poor thing.

Some supervision is better than NO supervision. Tom is giving an effort to help - they are going somewhere, I'd rather they be under supervision.

rh
RonHarper
QUOTE(Milton @ Jul 15 2008, 03:19 PM)

God forbid we put something in Township!
When they are not lumped together, the community can adsorb the impact, and we all know where they are by our trusty Meghan's law website. Lets say we place 15-20 sex offenders in a residential neighborhood together in one house, as is Armstrong's plan. Sure we know where they all are, but who wants to live next door? Better yet, who want's to buy a home in that imeadiate vacinity? Property values are certain to slump. However, when you have one sex offender living quietly in an apratment somewhere, even in a residential neighborhood, it goes by rather quietly. Halfway houses of the nature will only work properly in a more rural setting...


We know their last reported address, however, (a show of hands please) unless an issue like this comes up who is checking the MLWS daily to see who's moving in or out of their neighborhood??? I think the absorbtion plan works better for those communities where the number may be nominal per capita for example only 11 registered offenders in East Lampeter Township. However, those absorbtion rates will not hold true for every community.
Its kinda like rising gas prices, we don't like it when we are going through it, but when everything settles down we get used to it and then we get comfortable with it and then we live with it ...
Again, I'd like Mr Armstrong to address the programatic issues more completely before any final decision about where (if anywhere) he opens this halfway house - it should be part of the zoning process, I think...

eaglerick
QUOTE(eaglerick @ Jul 15 2008, 03:31 PM)


Its kinda like rising gas prices, we don't like it when we are going through it, but when everything settles down we get used to it and then we get comfortable with it and then we live with it ...


I totally agree. But, no one will ever choose to buy a home for their family next to a halfway house for sex offenders...that's just not rational thinking as there is no value in the property. Thus, it is unfair the take that value away from the folks who currently own the homes in the vacinity of the planned halfway home.
QUOTE(RonHarper @ Jul 15 2008, 03:22 PM)


Hope - I was talking about going to Allentown and that I was leaving that day!

You attack attack because you were WRONG and don't want to admit. Sigh. Poor thing.

Some supervision is better than NO supervision. Tom is giving an effort to help - they are going somewhere, I'd rather they be under supervision.

rh

Under supervision next door to you?

Milton
Just heard this on the news today. http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=...ocal&id=6265930
TRENTON (WABC) -- New Jersey towns cannot ban sex offenders from living near parks and other places where children gather, a state appeals court ruled on Tuesday.

The three-judge panel found that New Jersey's Megan's Law was "pervasive and comprehensive" and should be the only law governing how sex offenders are treated.

The court rejected laws in two New Jersey towns that placed tight restrictions on where sex offenders could live.

"The ordinances interfere with and frustrate the purposes and operation of the statewide scheme," Appellate Judge Joseph F. Lisa wrote for the court in a 42-page decision.
The ruling upheld findings by judges who invalidated ordinances in Cherry Hill and Galloway townships. Those laws banned adults convicted of sex offenses against a child from living within 2,500 feet of any school, park, playground, church or other place "where children might congregate."

Dozens of similar laws have been enacted in other New Jersey towns. Those would also be at risk if the latest ruling stands.

Some other states have enacted residency rules, but New Jersey's Megan's Law does not directly address that issue, and many question whether a statewide rule would be workable in New Jersey.

Cherry Hill Mayor Bernie Platt was considering whether to appeal the ruling and maintained that the ordinance "is valuable to our community," spokesman Dan Keashen said.

A message seeking comment from officials Galloway was not immediately returned.

The ruling was applauded by the state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

"Megan's Law is already accepted as constitutional and as the state's comprehensive approach to sex offenders. The residency requirements do not contribute to rehabilitation and may in fact undermine it," said Deborah Jacobs, executive director of the state chapter.

However, Richard D. Pompelio, a lawyer for the New Jersey Crime Victims' Law Center who had urged the court to uphold the ordinances, said he hopes the towns appeal.

He questioned how New Jersey's Megan's Law was pre-empted because it does not impose residency restrictions.

New Jersey's tradition of allowing "home rule" by its 566 municipalities favors allowing towns to impose their own rules, Pompelio said. And because some towns are small, and some are large, no state law restricting residency would be workable in all of them, he said.

State Public Defender Yvonne Smith Segars, who urged the appeals court to strike down the laws, agreed that a state law would be unworkable, especially in urban areas, because "everything is within 10 feet of everything."

"You can't impose unrealistic burdens on people and expect them to reintegrate. They paid their debt to society and are under supervision," Segars said.

The appellate panel says it did not have to decide constitutional issues because state law pre-empted the local laws.

The Cherry Hill law was challenged by two sex offenders convicted of violating the law after being placed in a motel by welfare officers with the approval of their probation and parole officers. The two men were considered moderate risks of committing another sex offense.

A 20-year-old college freshman at Richard Stockton College, in Galloway Township, challenged the law there after moving into a dormitory on campus. The student was considered a low-risk sex offender for an offense he committed when he was 15 against a 13-year-old girl.

Calls to their lawyers were not immediately returned.

The three men were among about 11,000 sex offenders registered in New Jersey, the first state to enact a Megan's Law. It was passed after a 7-year-old Hamilton Township girl, Megan Kanka, was killed in 1994 by a sex offender who lived in her neighborhood.

Similar laws in other states and eventually the nation followed.

In New Jersey, neighbors of high-risk offenders are notified by police.

jackieboy
Top Ads