Delta House Group Home on Cleveland St.
3/30 9:12am
It looks like Erica is on board with some help for those interested
in keeping tabs on Delta. Feel free to contact her with any
info/comments.
[see letter]
P.S.: At the end of April Sen. Browns office has scheduled a stop at the
Senior Center. See Norma for exact schedule.
- JO
3/25 6:02pm
TO TC: I agree with you 100%. Myself along with two
other women have started on organization called
VOICES. We have a web site if you want to check it out:
communityvoices.net.
On May 12, 2005 @ 7:00
p.m., we will be holding an Internet safety meeting at
the King Philip Junior High School. Senator Scott
Brown, an FBI Agent, a Massachusetts State Trooper and
a representative from the Norfolk Police Department
will be speaking. We hope to cover all aspects of
Internet safety including identity theft, etc.
Brochures will be passed out as well. We don't have
the answers, but we are hoping to make some sort of a
difference. If you would like more information,
please go on to the website or come to the meeting,
and we will meet with you then.
- SD
3/25 3:50pm
In light of the tragedy in Florida, I too reflected, with great relief, on
the efforts of those who fought the placement of sex offenders on Cleveland
St. I am willing to go a great distance to protect the rights of all
people, but I stop at pedophiles. Unfortunately, they are everywhere.
Knowing that registered sex offenders and pedophiles are no longer in that
neighborhood is a great start, but we must be mindful there are many more
who remain unregistered and equally, if not more, dangerous. Great strides
have been made, but as a society we have a long way to go to truly protect
our children.
- TC
3/24 8:18am
In thinking of the recent tragedy in Florida regarding yet another sex
offender and yet another innocent child, I would once again like to
express my gratitude to those who worked tirelessly to remove the sex
offender home from the Cleveland Street neighborhood. While most
people were very understanding of this situation even if they weren't
from this immediate area, there were those who seemed to be more
concerned for the rights of the sex offenders over the rights of the
children. For those who thought our neighborhood was just being
hysterical or discriminatory against these sex offenders, while
labeling us as "not in my backyard" Nimby, I hope that this recent
tragedy makes them realize that this does happen and we did have a
reason to be concerned! I am so thankful that when time after time
there were, what seemed to be brick walls in the way, there were those
that were relentless in their quest to return the neighborhood to a safe
haven for our children. While some of us might have been tempted
to sigh and give up on what seemed to be a never ending battle, there
were those who never did!!! I thank you for that--you know
who you are....I would also like to thank Sen. Scott Brown and his
staff for answering questions and staying on board with this issue and
making it an important one. We all would have been devastated
beyond belief if one of these horrible crimes had happened to one
of our own in this neighborhood and if it had been one of
ourchildren on the news and front pages of the paper but we know
that it breaks our hearts no matter where this happens, even if it's
thousands of miles away. This is a problem that needs attention
across the country. I hope the agencies working with these sex
offenders will do extensive research before placing them in
neighborhoods to "reintroduce" them to society. I wish these
men a quiet and crime free life in their new area but our
children's safety is and should always be the top priority. Thank
you to all who kept pursuing the goal and good luck to other
neighborhoods across the country who are trying to prevent these
horrible atrocities from happening.
- LB
3/17 1:02am
Thanks JO for the information and keeping up with it.
This certainly does answer a lot of questions as to
what happened to the bill.
- SD
3/16 8:29am
Tracking Bills - Met with Erika a week ago at the Senior Center where Sen.
Brown advertised that he was holding a session for anyone who wanted to
meet. Erika is his aide, and I am much pleased with the rapidity of her
taking ownership of making the access to bills user-friendly.
I would appreciate it if those concerned with the Delta issue would
proofread
her reply [here]
and see if it is indeed a step in the right
direction. Erika has both a phone num and e-mail address if you prefer to
call her direct. Anyway, thanks Erika, keep the info coming and I
hope to see you at the Senior Center on your next visit.
- JO
3/7 2:27pm
We have the official word that the level two sex
offenders have moved out of Cleveland Street. I want
to thank everybody who made this possible.
- SD
3/4 8:32am
I plan to meet with Sen Scott Brown Tuesday in Millis to follow through
on the
suggestion that the procedure follow-thrugh on any bill be clarified. I
spoke with him a month ago and gave him the entire Delta file as shown
on Norfolknet.com. To date I have not had a reply.
Rep Ross's aide called and downloaded same, and we have a committment by
her to pursue the same task.
- JO
2/25 12:09pm
I have been informed by State Senator Scott Brown that
the residents are scheduled to move out of Cleveland
Street on March 1, 2005. As soon as it is official, I
will post it again. Thank you.
- SD
1/24 10:24pm
Sen. Scott Brown stopped by the Town Hall Info Desk to say hello as he was
heading for a Public Safety Meeting.
I took the opportunity to hand him the "Delta File" from
Norfolknet.com in its entirety relating to all of the input received by
the Net since it was separated by the Wm.
He was made aware of the need for feedback on the progress of bills. I
related to him that I would like to give him an opportunity to read the
input.
I mentioned that I would like to notify Sec of State Galvin three weeks
hence if it is not in his ballpark to establish a cogent feedback
system.
So around Feb 30th I intend to send a formal letter to the Mass. Sec. of
State if
there is little interest.
Any other suggestions ?
What do you inputters think of this approach? Perhaps the situation has
changed and information is on hand with scheduled changes taking place??
- JO
1/10 2:54pm
To: JO - I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. The
renovations are not being done to 59 Cleveland Street.
They are being done to the new facility that the
residents of 59 Cleveland Street are moving into.
- SD
1/9 10:05pm
To SD. Can one assume the renovations at Cleveland St. are approved
and recorded by the Building Dept. / Board of Health, etc. and on recordt?
- JO
1/7 2:52pm
To those of you who are wondering what is going on
with the residents at 59 Cleveland Street, please be
advised that they are renovating a home for them. As
soon as the home is finished, they will be moving. I
will keep you posted on any new developments.
- SD
12/9 12:31am
Thanks SD. Hope the opinions help. Read with interest your recruiting.
Personally I think that contacting Sec of State Galvin with the
problem of tracking would put his finite talents to work THEN one can
recruit.
Its my opinion and I'm not infallible!!! But the system needs attention.
- JO
12/5 2:14pm
TO JO: I absolutely agree with you that the average
person does not know understand the confusion that
goes along with getting a bill passed, myself
included. I am forming a group with two women, one in
Chelmsford and one in North Andover. The purpose of
this group is to inform communities of what to do if
a situation such as existed on Cleveland Street comes
up, keeping people up dated on the legislation and
laws that are being passed, etc. We are planning on
going to TPA's, Day Care Centers, etc.
As soon as we have more information on exactly when we
will begin, I will post it on the Norfolk Net. Thank
you for all your suggestions. I am sure that this
will help a lot of citizens in Massachusetts.
- SD
12/5 9:17pm
To SD: Thanks for inquiry as to my opinion.
It is along the following lines with some suggestions:
My opinion is that both Rep. Ross and Sen do not have the time to
birddog the bill that has been put in and of course it was not put in
jointly. It was SUBMITTED by Sen Scott.
Have you seen anything like the following ?
e.g.
Date Submitted - Copy of the Bill. {Date}
- Location {Date} - Routed to {date}
- Location {7 days later}
- Progress {7 Days later}
- Scheduled Routing {7 days later}
- Monthly report to constituents.
- Estimated progress.
- etc
A side issue -- Does the Cleveland St Committee think the Bill as
printed is adequate ? Why not make it avalable to the townspeople either
by posting on the Website or in the local papers with requests for
opinions ,if needed.
My major suggestion is to have the Cleveland St Committee ask the
Secretary of State (Mr. William Galvin) to realize that despite the
fine information that exists, that planning and scheduling information
does not exist for the layman to access. I am of the opinion that it
will take a personage with his proven administrative acumen to ease the
information gap.
I know Mr. Galvin can wreak some magic and devise a user-friendly time
line and status for a given bill at a given inquiry time.
I could submit some more info via the internet (Sec. of State) but
believe I am using a significant amount of space (thanks to Wm.) so I
dont want to overstay my welcome.
What do you think?
- JO
12/3 4:26pm
JO - If we were to have a meeting with
Representative Ross and Senator Brown telling us the
chronological order of the bill, then don't you think
it would make sense for Scaccia to go to the meeting
too, so that he could explain to us how laws are
passed, so even simple folk like me could understand?
Thank you.
- SD
12/2 11:48pm
To those interested in the Delta House affair and to answer inquiries
from PFD et. al. --
1. It is a tough path to follow. Not only is it difficult to get
applicable answers, but to delve thru the maze of aides etc is very
confusing.
2. The bill itself has lost its identity, somewhat. I believe it is
now a House Bill 2628 somewhere. It is lying dormant AS REPORTED BY
BOTH SIDES OF THE PARTIES so it isn't "he is holding it up " or "they
are debating it."
3. See
Sen. Brown's letter to me dated Nov 24/04
[and pages
2
3
4
5]. While it is true that
the legislation is held in the Committee on House this is to be expected
under our democratic system. Impact has to be studied, etc.; equal group of
the two parties have to be assigned to study the matter/jurisdiction.
By no stretch of the imagination can a politician assert that he is
putting a bill in to remedy a situation.
4. Voters are being misled if they are making assumptions of a quick
fix.
5. Note that Sen. Scott's letter cites that "new legistation" will be
"offered " for the next legislative session.
6 Now that we are older and wiser there are a few suggestions for us.
7. Let's ask for a meeting of our representative and senator and ask for
a time-line chronology of the bill that was filed and the path it
followed and where it sits now with what validity.
8. Indeed, despite the fact that the inhabitants of the Delta-run
houses will be leaving (report), what change in the law will it bring?
I submit: zero, for original Bill is still being assigned an mulled
over by both proponents and opponents. Have we been told precisely
where and when events occured?
It seems to reinforce the picture that the law really hasn't changed. If
so, where is the law?? I rest the case.
We need a clear cut picture of how we can identify and follow a piece
of legislation no matter how controversial it is.
9. Suggest a Committee really show our legislators that far from stifling
the system, interested voters deserve to understand an monitor the
process for maximum effect.
10. As it stands now, some understanding of the process has to take place
and feedback that is relevant.
11. It would also be useful to talk to other members of the House and
Ways Committee. I did and came away with the complexity involved in
even a simple matter. However, it should spark a renewed interest in us
to assure that we are getting the proper and timely feed back needed.
Ah - Democracy - Thy speed is not like the wind.
Regards,
- JO
11/30 5:18pm
JO, any response to my questions on 11/17? Thank you.
- PFD
11/17 10:49pm
TO PFD: Thank you for your questions to JO about Scaccia. Since July of
this year, I personally called Scaccia's office eight times, e-mailed
him four times and even stopped by his office and left a lengthy message
with his reception, who called me to tell me that he would be calling
me. That visit was over one month ago, and I still have not heard from
him. So, phone calls have been made to him, and he HAS NOT returned any
of them.
- SD
11/17 9:19pm
To JO, thank you for the information on how a bill is enacted and put into
law. I am interested in what Mr. Sciasca said to you to give you the
opinion he is not holding up the bill? I am not saying he is or is not, I
am trying to understand what part of that long process is making this bill
sit there with no action. If he is not impeding the process why will he not
return the phone calls regarding the subject (if that is in fact true as
well)? Thanks for your response.
- PFD
11/16 11:32pm
State Senator Scott Brown will be on Fox 25 10:00 p.m. News on
Wednesday, November 17, 2004, if anybody has any questions about the sex
offender legislation that he is trying to pass. This might answer some
of those questions for you. Thank you for your concern.
- SD
11/15 11:10pm
Much has been written about the "holdup" of House bill 2626 (placement
of predators) in Norfolk.
People have accused the Chairman of the Ways and Means, Angelo Sciasca,
of being the impediment to movement of this bill, as does the
filer, Sen. Scott Brown.
Knowing Mr. Sciasca socially, I had the occasion to ask him if indeed he
was the delay. For balance, I also asked Sen. Brown the same question.
I then asked the Sec. of State Galvin for an informational packet on
the procedure.
Viewers can log in on the following :
www.sec.state.ma.us/trs/trs/lawidx.htm
This excellent guideline should dispel any erroneous information as to
who is holding up what!!
The next time either proponents or opponents cite undue delay on a bill,
ask them to realize the path that has to be followed per the law. (If
one doesn't like the law, then work to change it.)
Better still, ask them to explain the holdup per the procedures and time
line.
Accusations should be supported by reference to the existing laws and
procedures.
I thank Sec. Galvin for an excellent treatise on the subject.
What do you think?
- JO
11/13 7:49am
Oh, no, you all say, NOT JC writing twice in one night -- we just can't
stand this any more! Well, folks, you are going to hear something here
that rarely ever happens publicly, and that is that I apologize -- just
a little bit -- for being so one-sided about the group home discussion.
I realize now (after sleeping on this, literally, and waking up in the
middle of the night with an epiphany) that the neighborhood, especially
the people living right next to the group home, will most likely have a
harder time selling their homes because of their locating there. No,
duh, JC! That's what we've all been shouting at you! So some people
(the immediate neighborhood) are disproportionally paying for society's
push that marginalized people be re-entered into society. A true
problem, yes.
But, really, this whole bruhaha was fueled by the sex offender registry
law, which was initiated by well-meaning people to notify people of
potential dangers in their community. So what was the result of that
law? It in effect blacklisted neighborhoods where sex offenders lived.
Hmmmmm, was that the effect we really wanted? Is it better to label the
devil in your neighborhood, at the expense of branding your
neighborhood? Or would it have been better for society if we continued
to do what we always have done -- watch our neighbors and our children
carefully at all times, don't let our kids alone.
Of, course (yes, I already hear you all screaming at your computers
again!), we could have a third choice: make sure that convicted sex
offenders who are put back into society are truly safe to be there
before they are let out of the legal system. So let's work at changing
the criminal code for sex offenders, so the public is assured that these
people are not going to do this again. The problem that I have with the
bill that Scott Brown is trying to push through the legislature is that
it does not address the root of the problem -- that a percentage of sex
offenders are likely to re-commit their crimes -- but just
geographically limits them (a NIMBY issue); of course, there is nothing
to say, in this highly mobile society, that a convicted sex offender who
is banished to live in the boonies can't simply drive into a more
populated area!
And, as for the potential economic stigma that a group home of mentally
disabled adults would bring to a neighborhood, I suspect that this would
dissipate over time. When special needs children were first included in
regular education classrooms, many parents (and teachers) were concerned
that the entire class would suffer as a result. After many years,
though, I believe most people feel that the change was for the better
overall, as all class members (read "neighbors") were enriched by
knowing people who were different. How long that will take for
neighborhoods to develop that way, who knows. In the meantime,
unfortunately, the immediate neighbors will possibly feel an economic
repercussion. It's sort of similar to initial racial integration in a
neighborhood, where some potential buyers won't even consider moving
next to a (fill in the blank) family; I don't think that's generally now
an issue in this town, and individuals don't lose economically as a
result. Let's hope it
becomes a non-issue for the mentally disabled as well.
So, folks, I can't take much more of this thinking about this topic
24/7, and I suspect that you are all burned out as well. I hope that my
postings have in some way furthered some careful thought in at least
some of you, and maybe some positive action as well to address the real
problems our society faces. I wish you all well.
- JC
11/13 7:48am
JC - I think once again you are conveniently missing some valid points
here and I think SD is totally correct in giving up on talking
reasonably to you, since it seems to fuel some sort of fire within you.
I will state for myself and I think it's safe to say that I could speak
for several, if not all the people in this neighborhood, that we have
never had a problem with mentally challenged people living in this home.
WE have a problem with sex offenders living in our midst, period. I
personally have a problem with people that want to justify their actions
and smooth everything over, when all you have to do is pick up a paper
on any given day and read about level two sex offenders re-offending and
usually the second time around is more gruesome than the first. The
issue here is #1 the sex offenders living in close proximity to our
children and #2 the way the agency has gone about business in an
underhanded and sneaky manner, leaving us feeling unsettled and
vulnerable. I am too tired talking to you about this quite frankly JC
and I think that people like you are really being as closed-minded as you
are trying to make US out to be!!!! We know where we stand and what our
viewpoints are and what our convictions are and what we feel our rights
and the rights of our children are. If you want to continue your little
rant about defending these poor, innocent sex offenders, than you will
have to find someone else to bicker with because I don't have time to
discuss this with you any longer. It is like beating a dead horse. It
seems that because you no longer have any points to argue, that you are
taking the low road and trying to make this about mentally challenged
people and it absolutely is not and I'm quite sure you know that. It is
about sex offenders......
S-E-X O-F-F-E-N-D-E-R-S.... or in other words, people who offend,
sexually. It doesn't matter if their IQ is 65 or 265--the fact that
they are sex offenders is the issue, period!! The minute you start
putting words into my mouth I am all done talking to you. One thing is
clear--either you just like to argue or perhaps it is that you are as
passionate about the rights of sex offenders, as we are about our rights
and the rights of innocent children. You have a right to your opinion,
as do we...I do find it interesting that you never seemed to be at any
of the public discussions regarding this home--why weren't you there
defending these men before your fellow townspeople?? Perhaps you were
but you didn't speak up since it's obviously a very hot topic and you
wouldn't be very popular.... It's easy to hide behind a posting on a
web page but is it productive??
- LB
11/12 8:48pm
After all of this discussion in the last few days, I have to admit that
I am somewhat baffled. (Let's see if someone is willing to stoop low
enough to make a comment on that!) The house on Cleveland Street was
bought with state money to provide housing for people with mental
retardation; do people have a problem with providing such housing to
these folks? The state does not, as far as I know, provide housing
specifically for sex offenders; in this case, the state has provided
housing because these individuals in question are mentally retarded and
cannot live on their own.
The reason I ask if people have a problem with this is because, while
much of the initial neighborhood outcry was ostensibly to protect the
neighborhood children from the sex offenders, now it seems that people
are questioning why that particular house was purchased for a group home
at all, as seen by LB's comments: If you look at the house that this
agency chose--I mean really look at it--how much they paid, the fact
that it only has three bedrooms for 4 adult men, it didn't have an
adequate septic system, surrounded by woods, it has a pool, which to me
could put these men at risk, unless they all know how to swim...the list
goes on and on... Clearly, when taking these things into consideration,
this house was a very poor choice[.] Why can't two men share one bedroom?
I suspect that the same people who question that the number of
bedrooms was too few for four men would turn around and complain that
the state was pampering these people with our taxpayer money if the rule
was that only
one person could be in a bedroom. (Nobody questions that private
universities soak parents many thousands of dollars a year to put their
young adult son or daughter in a teeny little room with two or three
other roommates!) The septic system replacement is a non-issue, as it
is fairly safe to say that any house over 30 years old will need to have
a system replacement. And the pool and the woods... are they any more
unsafe for a family with little children? As for the purchase price,
the state buys houses throughout the commonwealth, I would imagine, so
that those mentally disabled clients could live and work near where they
grew up and where their extended families are; should we expect that the
state would insist that all group homes for the mentally disabled be
only in poor economic areas where housing stock is cheap?
Eventually people were even questioning why the money was allotted for
housing at all. For example, MR writes, "How many teachers, police
officers, or firefighters could we hire for the $430k the taxpayers
spent on that house??? Never mind the cost of 24 hour supervision. That
money comes out of OUR pockets." The money is for people with mental
retardation. Do we have a problem with that? We seem to readily spend
money on special education for these people when they are younger, even
if they have criminal convictions as teenagers (and there are many of
them in that category). So now we all of a sudden want to get tough
with them when they are a little older?
Or is it, as I suspect, all of a sudden a problem because this group
home happens to be in the same neighborhood as some of us, and we don't
want it there? It wasn't enough that the sex offenders were moved away,
now we question that it really isn't an appropriate house for a group
home anyway for all sorts of reasons. Based on the dearth of reasonable
responses to my previous postings' questions about what to do with these
people, I don't know that too many of you are working on real solutions
to this problem of other than making sure that you personally never have
to brush up against it.
- JC
11/12 6:14pm
Where did all the people (patients) go to that were housed in Medfield
State Hospital, Wrentham State Hospital, and Foxboro State Hospital?
Wrentham is still open but at about 2% of what it once was. Prison?
Group homes? under a bridge in Cambridge/ (homeless)?.
- LS
11/12 10:02am
Regarding the sex offenders. It is a shame that there is no way these
criminals could have prevented being the subject of such negative
attitudes... WAIT !! There was an option for them! They could have not
committed the crimes! I don't care if they have trouble fitting into
society... It is like the article in last Sunday's Globe about mothers in
prison that want more time with their children.... maybe these criminals
should have considered the ramifications before making the mistake. How
many teachers, police officers, or firefighters could we hire for the
$430k the taxpayers spent on that house??? Never mind the cost of 24
hour supervision. That money comes out of OUR pockets. Isn't it
strange that if I choose not to pay my taxes to fund this, I go to jail,
these people get a house that is above the median home value in the
town.
- MR
11/12 6:14pm
Where did all the people (patients) go to that were housed in Medfield
State Hospital, Wrentham State Hospital, and Foxboro State Hospital?
Wrentham is still open but at about 2% of what it once was. Prison?
Group homes? under a bridge in Cambridge/ (homeless)?.
- LS
11/12 10:02am
Regarding the sex offenders. It is a shame that there is no way these
criminals could have prevented being the subject of such negative
attitudes... WAIT !! There was an option for them! They could have not
committed the crimes! I don't care if they have trouble fitting into
society... It is like the article in last Sunday's Globe about mothers in
prison that want more time with their children.... maybe these criminals
should have considered the ramifications before making the mistake. How
many teachers, police officers, or firefighters could we hire for the
$430k the taxpayers spent on that house??? Never mind the cost of 24
hour supervision. That money comes out of OUR pockets. Isn't it
strange that if I choose not to pay my taxes to fund this, I go to jail,
these people get a house that is above the median home value in the
town.
- MR
11/12 9:57am
JC - It was not my intent to get into a full fledged discussion with you
on this subject but I guess I would like to respond to your
post... First of all, let's remember who the victims are in this
situation. It is not the person who was intending to rape and got
caught and it is not the person who molested a child and got caught.
they are not the victims. If they are having problems finding open arms
to welcome them into a community, then they should have thought about
that before they committed their crimes and if they were not capable of
thinking it thru then, then what is to prevent them from thinking it
thru now?? The victims in this stituation and other situations is the
person that was almost raped and the child that was molested first and
foremost, BUT also the victims in this situation are the parents and the
children living in these neighborhoods that have literally had their
lives changed and their way of doing things changed because the state
came along and said, we're going to plop these people down here and we
don't care what the zoning laws are for the town and we don't care what
sort of discomfort this causes the neighbors, this is where they're
going. If you look at the house that this agency chose--I mean really
look at it--how much they paid, the fact that it only has three bedrooms
for 4 adult men, it didn't have an adequate septic system, surrounded by
woods, it has a pool, which to me could put these men at risk, unless
they all know how to swim...the list goes on and on... Clearly, when
taking these things into consideration, this house was a very poor
choice even if you don't add in the population of children and the fact
that it is set back into the woods and not easily monitored by the
police. Of course the list of victims in the situation goes on and on
also--how about the incident where one of these men was looking at the
child across the street, not once but TWICE with binoculars??!! Is that
child and the play date she had over, victims?? Of course they are--it
was very upsetting to them, BUT guess what??!! They have as much as
been told that they were lying about the incident by the people running
the home, even though the psychologist for these men came over and
removed the binoculars....So, then that bring us back into the dark ages
when victims kept their mouths shut about being abused or uncomfortable
because they felt nobody would believe them anyway....These little
children know what they saw and yet now they are being told they made it
up.....yet again not protecting the innocent but protecting the the
person that caused the problem in the first place!!!! Lastly, I would
like to say that anyone in this neighborhood that owns a home is a
victim. The older couple I spoke about in my last post, that lives next
door to this house, happens to be my parents. Never mind that my family
lives two doors down from the house, it burns me up inside because I
know my parents worked hard their whole lives to settle down into this
new house that they built 4 years ago. They have lived in this town for
almost 40 years, been law abiding citizens, paid their taxes, attended
town meetings, sent 3 of us thru the school system and after retiring a
few years ago, built their beautiful home--so now what....what if they
want to sell their home a few years down the road, or what if they don't
want to but they have to sell??? Who would want to buy a home next to a
sex offender house, no matter how beautiful it is??? The point is that
all of us are trapped now and probably couldn't sell our homes even if
we wanted to, or if we did sell, we would have to take a huge loss. So,
there you have it, we the home owners are victims of these people's
crimes as well. I don't feel sorry for them, I feel sorry for the
victims and maybe this is why you are finding more than just a few of us
that don't agree with your overly compassionate viewpoint. Oh and
incidentally, I think it's ironic that in a town like Norfolk, where
housing prices are so high, that the state would pay a ridiculous amount
of money for a house like the one they are living in....Norfolk is one
of the towns that is untouchable by most people who are law abiding
citizens just starting out, like newly weds.....and yet if you commit a
sex crime, you might beable to move here....this does not make any
sense!! Is this how you want your tax dollars spent???
- LB
11/11 8:21pm
LB: Thank you for your calm, organized manner in explaining some of the
issues dealing with the Cleveland Street group home. Their apparent
behavior (I say that only because I did not experience it firsthand)
certainly makes a difficult situation a little more complicated, as we
are really talking about two issues rolled into one: first, the way in
which THIS group home came into the community, and second, how we as a
society deal with people who might be a danger to the rest of us. As I
have had no firsthand interaction with the group home personnel, I
cannot comment on how it was handled, although it certainly appears to
have been less than productive for both sides.
The second issue, which is what I am really trying to discuss, is how we
as a Massachusetts citizenry handle these level 2 and 3 sex offenders.
I truly can appreciate that people are nervous about them in their
midst, and that my tolerance is obviously higher than some others',
but to make the sweeping proposal that no one convicted of a sex
offense be allowed to live within a mile and a half of a school,
playground, or day care setting is simply unworkable. LB, you stated
that one of the problems of the Cleveland Street setting is that it is
wooded and near children. Can you tell me any place in Massachusetts
that is outside of the 1.5 mile radius of school, playground, and
daycare that is NOT wooded or near children? The proposed law
conveniently excludes ALL of Norfolk (I am presuming that there is at
least one licensed day care setting in Lafayette Estates), and I would
guarantee that virtually every town in Eastern Massachusetts would have
the same limitations. So do we send all of these sex offenders to
Western Massachusetts?
Some other questions come to mind: If a person is already living in a
house near a school and is subsequently convicted of a sex offense, does
he have to move away? Does his family have to move? What if he can't
sell his house? As he is trying to get back into a more appropriate
life, will he have to quit his job because he is forced to live too far
away from his job? And what if he lives outside the 1.5 mile radius,
but then a day care center is opened close by -- does he have to move
away then? I am sure by now that some of you are screaming at the
computer while reading my questions, thinking that I just don't get it
-- these people DESERVE every problem that they get. But actually, I
"get it" quite well and realize that we can't just make these sweeping
proposals to get people away from us without thinking them through to
see if they will work. It is OUR problem as a society, and to refuse to
think of the ramifications of our actions as though we were all little
children who could just "wish" the problem away with unworkable
legislation is not acceptable. Currently there are approximately 18,000
convicted sex offenders in Massachusetts. If we "just send them away,
far away from anywhere there are children," where do they go? "I don't
care," is not an acceptable answer -- it's like demanding an expensive
vacation (or whatever) without knowing how you are going to pay for it.
If we as a society think that ANYone convicted as a sex offender is too
dangerous to live amongst us (even with the "Scarlet Letter" designation
of the sex offender registration law - my apologies to Hawthorne), then
they all should be incarcerated for life. But our criminal laws
currently say that many of them are deemed safe enough to live in
general society, and that all who are released from incarceration have
paid their debt to society. So what this means is that maybe we should
be fighting to change the criminal code for sex offenders, not
supporting what is in effect an unworkable proposal.
A couple of people have brought up the comment that these people don't
deserve living in a house with a swimming pool, all bought with our tax
dollars. For better or worse, our commonwealth decided approximately 25
years ago that warehousing the marginalized people in our society in
places like Wrentham, Medfield, and Foxboro State Hospitals was cruel
and counter-productive, as these people would become more productive
members of society if they were out in the community in group homes.
Having worked in places like Wrentham State Hospital, I have to agree
with the decision to move them into the community. So we are going to
complain because these folks have a swimming pool? Or is it just that
the sex offenders in the group home have a swimming pool? It all goes
back to whether we are trying to punish the sex offenders (who have paid
their debt according to the current criminal code) or to help them to
take their place in society.
I fully recognize that there are some (many!) of you who disagree with
me. Please understand that I am not trying to get you more upset about
a volatile situation, I am just trying to make sure that we have a full
discussion of what the issues really are. If I have offended some of
you in the process, that wasn't my intention. I respect that you have
strong opinions, and I only hope that you can acknowledge mine as well.
- JC
11/11 1:20pm
TO JC: This is my final comment to you. Do not put words in my mouth.
I have a problem with sex offenders. All those other undesirables [...]
were words you put in my mouth. And let me remind you
that WE bought that house for them. They didn't purchase it with their
own money. Did we also buy their victims houses, or do we leave them to
fend for themselves and get their own mental care treatment that they
need for the rest of their lives after being raped??? No, we take
care of the criminals but not the victims. You will never see my side
of the story. I will never see yours. So let's just end this now.
- SD
11/11 11:31am
To JC--Just a comment regarding the idea of bringing a cake over to the
group home.....I happen to know that the older couple living right next
door to the home already tried to bring them some homemade bread as a
good will gesture, and to introduce themselves as their neighbors.
Several months ago, we had been encouraged to meet these men and told
that if we just met them, that we would like them. So, after baking
bread and trying to take it to them to be neighborly, this older couple
was told to leave the property and they were spoken to very rudely by
the person in charge. Even after calling the woman who had encouraged
them to meet them in the first place, and explaining to her what had
happened when they tried to meet them, there wasn't even an apology for
how they had been treated.
I really think that if the agency that runs
this home had worked with the neighborhood to calm our fears from the
very beginning and honestly answer our questions, it would have been
very helpful. However they have done virtually nothing to work with us
and in fact on numerous occasions, outright lied to us and town
officials--some of which is on videotape. They have been very sneaky
from the very beginning and this brings about a trust issue with those
of us that are close by. If you are repeatedly lied to about various
things, like how many bedrooms are in the house and not allowing town
officials into the house to check because obviously they had something
to hide, then why should we believe that these men are indeed being
watched 24 hours a day?? If they are being watched, who's watching them
and what are their qualifications?? None of these questions have been
answered. I think it might be easy for some to sit in judgment of this
situation and how it's been handled but I feel certain that if these
people knew the whole picture regarding the handling of this situation
by those in charge of this home, and how the agency has handled not only
the neighbors but even the town itself, their vision might be cleared.
SD--from the very beginning you have been working closely on this and I
know you speak the truth and from your heart....there are so many in
this neighborhood that thank you for that. No one is saying these men
don't have a right to live in society but why put them in a situation
where they are setting them up for failure by putting them in an area
surrounded by woods and surrounded by children??!! If people care so
much about these men, wouldn't it be the right thing to do to remove
them as much as possible from temptation, so they don't reoffend and end
up in a much, much less desirable place then a $430,000.00 house with a
pool, on Cleveland St and with far fewer rights??!!
- LB
11/11 8:49am
JC - Are you serious or are you trying to be ironic? Are you really
claiming that folks who question the safety of having sex offenders in
their neighborhoods are engaging in witch hunts? Are you really all
that concerned about infringing upon the rights of sex offenders?
Because I'll tell you, no one else is.
Usually I am angered by the NIMBY mentality, but in this case I have to
say there's no way I'd want sex offenders living in my neighborhood.
With so much open space in this country, it shouldn't be too difficult
to find a median strip or sand pit somewhere to build a home for
wayward molesters. There's just no justification for a halfway house
for sex offenders to exist in any populated area where civilized people
and their children live. None.
When you commit a sex crime, and especially against a child, you give
up your stake in the 'foundation of liberty that we all so cherish.'
- DF
11/10 10:59pm
To SD: I don't want sex offenders in my neighborhood, I don't want drug
addicts in my neighborhood, I don't want convicts in my neighborhood.
In fact, I don't want lots of different types of unsavory people in my
neighborhood. And some people probably don't want ME in their
neighborhood, because I think differently than they do. But guess what?
We all have the right to live wherever we want, because this is America.
Even if our thoughts and actions are unpopular. So let's stop the witch
hunt mentality and realize that when we are hell-bent on limiting other
people's rights, we are chipping away at the foundation of liberty that
we all so cherish.
- JC
11/10 10:31pm
TO JC: Let me remind you and everybody else who has a question about
this group home situation: Do you know whether or not these men
committed their crimes while they were being supervised twenty-four
hours a day? Because when we met with a representative from the
Department of Mental Retardation we asked that question to him, and he
refused to answer it, which led us all to believe that the crimes could
have been committed while they were being "supervised." So, unless you
know otherwise, it is safe to assume that they committed their crimes
while they were being supervised. End of story.
As far as the ``not in my neighborhood'' attitude.
Let me tell you this: I
don't want it in anybody's neighborhood, not just mine. And I said that
from the very beginning of all this. If you are comfortable with sex
offenders, that is your problem. Stop thinking you can tell me how I am
supposed to feel about them. I am not a fool. I know there are people
to avoid and my children know it as well. That's the world we live in.
And you can go up on your high horse if you want, but saying "I should
have" and actually doing it are two different things. We had meetings
with the Town Officials about this, were you there defending these men
asking us to give them a chance?
- SD
11/10 3:57pm
To Name Withheld by Request: Yes, it was a tragedy that you were raped
by a stranger -- I certainly don't deny you that, and I hope that you
are somehow able to put one foot in front of the other every day to
continue on with your life. My heart goes out to you for your struggle.
But I have to ask a few questions (which I certainly understand that you
won't answer, but they are posed for the discussion at hand) -- was the
stranger who raped you a mentally retarded individual who was living in
a 24-hour supervised setting near you? Or was it a more random attack by
someone who wouldn't be so easily categorized? I suspect that the
rapist was not a group home member.
As for my reference to other crimes (illegal drinking, DWI, stealing,
etc.), my point was that we don't generally know if our neighbors and
their visitors have any "hidden pasts," so we all learn to protect
ourselves and our children from people in general. Just because an
individual is not labelled "dangerous" by the state does not mean that
he or she is not a threat to us and our children. The sex offender
registry deals only with people convicted after August 1, 1981; that
means that there could be older convicted offenders living right in our
midst whom we don't know about!
[mass.gov ref]
To SD: The use of the word "rumors" rather than "convicted" was because
this neighborhood situation happened in the 1960's -- there would be no
way of knowing if these neighbors were actually sex offenders. The
point was that they were identified (rightly or wrongly), and we all
knew that there were some "people in the neighborhood to stay away
from." So we did. End of story.
Somehow this whole group home uproar smacks of NIMBY. And, for the
record, I and my children live less than a mile from the group home
myself, so maybe I should have taken a walk over with my welcoming cake
to greet the new neighbors.
- JC
11/10 3:06pm
TO JC: There is a difference in my opinion from "rumors flying around"
and actual facts. The two men on Cleveland Street are "convicted" sex
offenders. There is a difference between a "rumor" and a "conviction."
I know about supervising my children. I have always supervised my
children, but I do have a problem with the state putting sex offenders
so close to my children. There is no safe place to live in this world,
and I know it. But moving convicted sex offenders away from a
neighborhood with 25 children is a good start. You can also stop with
your statistics. I am not interested in my children become one of the
statistics of children who get raped by neighbors rather than relatives
or "Friendly Uncle Frank."
- SD
11/10 11:21am
To JC and DN,
As a victim of rape, by a stranger, I am appalled at your comments. How
can you compare smoking cigarettes, stealing and drinking to rape? I
live with this everyday of my life and will never feel safe again. I
now have young children and live down the street from these offenders.
Why should their rights be put above my children's rights? I would do
anything to protect them from these people. As far as I am concerned
they got off easy - nice house on Cleveland Street with a pool. What's
next? A membership at the club? They do not deserve rights like us.
We are decent citizens who obey the law. They are criminals who hurt
children.
- [Initials withheld - Wm.]
11/10 11:11am
I guess I didn't get my point across very well. Of course I don't think
that stealing from a mailbox is on the same level as sexual molestation.
A bad example. But maybe being hit by a drunk driver does just as much
permanent damage as being molested, yet we don't have a huge outcry when
someone who has one or more DWI's lives in the neighborhood, even though
there are statistics to show that repeat offenders are more likely to be
involved in a fatal crash
[MADD statistics page]
; that
fatal crash might involve your innocent family member or mine coming
home from a late meeting or whatever.
The point I'm trying to make is that we should all be aware of the real
risks involved, not just reacting from our guts. Someone (I don't have
the norfolknet posting in front of me)
[11/9 8:51pm]
brought up the priest molestation
scandal as testimony to the damage done by sexual molestation. Does
that mean that all priests are perverts? Of course not! What it means
is that we as parents should never assume that a friendly priest (or
neighbor or relative) is appropriate for our child to be alone with.
There are always "bad" people around in our environment, always have
been, and always will be. Our job as parents (yes, I have children who
have grown up in Norfolk) is to teach our kids how to maneuver
themselves safely in the world. As DN and I both stated, the
overwhelming majority of victims of sex crimes know their perpetrators
[US DOJ ref].
It is highly unlikely that a
mentally challenged individual under 24 hour supervision would nab a
little child playing out
in the yard to molest him or her; it's statistically much more likely
that that same child would be raped by a "doting" grandfather, uncle, or
cousin.
As for the upcoming Senate bill backed by Scott Brown, I feel that
people are reacting to the gut feeling of fear rather than really
analyzing the actual risks. A licensed child care home or center has a
responsible adult watching all of those children every minute they are
there -- not much opportunity for a lurking child molester to snatch a
victim, at least not in the day care settings my children attended when
they were younger. Likewise, a school has plenty of supervision for
their charges, again, giving virtually no opportunity for someone to
lure a child away. Yes, playgrounds are the least "secure" settings for
our children if there is not supervisory adult presence there; so maybe
we could fine-tune such a bill to limit access to playground environs by
convicted sex criminals. But understand that other convicted (and
potential!) sex offenders who don't live in that area could still just
as easily hang around our Norfolk playgrounds after school, even if they
live in another town, so this proposed bill does not really solve
anything!!! All it does is give some of us the false sense of
security that we are protecting our children by creating a wall around
us.
May I suggest that instead we all do the following: make sure we provide
adult supervision for our grade-school children at all times, and teach
them how to identify dangers and respond to them appropriately as they
get older. If that means that a group of parents take turns supervising
the playground after school, so be it. But please, oh please, don't
miss the statistically documented threat of sexual abuse by relatives
and friends of the family!!!
SD -- Your response brought back a memory for me. I grew up in a
neighborhood of closely situated houses where two middle-aged mentally
challenged men lived with their parents. There were lots of rumors
flying around in the neighborhood about how these brothers had a history
of making sexual advances towards people; we all handled it by knowing
to stay away from their house and keeping a healthy distance from either
of the men as they walked to and from the end of the street to catch the
bus to their jobs. We never felt that they were going to snatch us from
our yards, and we certainly didn't feel that it was our responsibility
to run them out of town. And to think -- those were the days when we
all left our doors unlocked and we kids would say goodbye to Mom in the
morning for a day of unsupervised play around the neighborhood,
returning only for meals!
- JC
11/9 8:55pm
TO JC & DN: If you want to compare somebody who steals something from
my mailbox with a sex offender, who molested a child under the age of
fourteen, you go right ahead, but for every one of you who thinks that
these men have rights to live in neighborhoods with twenty-five children
at their disposal, there are 100 of me who think you are absolutely
mistaken. You do not know the circumstances of these individuals, and I
am sure that if you did you would still try to defend their actions. I
have been working on this issue since March, and I believe I know more
about these people and the people who "supervise" them than you do, so
until you do your homework, you should keep your opinions to yourself.
Victims are not always people in the family, and if there isn't any
family available, who do you think these sex offenders turn to next? I'm
not apologizing for wanting these men away from my children and my
neighbor's children. If you think they are so special, did you go over
to their
house with a cake and welcome them to Norfolk? Or are you just sitting
home criticizing people who want their children protected from rapist
and child molesters? As a a parent I have a right to defend my children
BEFORE something happens to them. And if that is not how you go about
your life that is your business.I still don't feel you have the right to
paint me or anybody like me as an uncaring or over-reacting individual.
Also, let me ask you this. Would you buy a house next to two level two
sex offenders? Because most people would not, therefore, people in this
neighborhood couldn't sell their houses. Why should we have to be
prisoners in our own homes for crimes other people committed?
- SD
11/9 8:51pm
To JC - how could you possibly think that a shoplifting crime or
stealing from one's mail box could ever compare to the violation of one's
body by a sex offender?? Geez we are talking about a lifetime of damage
not only to a person's body but to one's mental state for the REST of
their lives - once you are a victim of this kind of crime - it's not
like you can shake it off and have a chuckle when something has been
taken from your mailbox. Have you not been watching the news and seeing
the pain on the faces of all those violated by priests - in many cases
decades ago? I think the point was raised that the Cleveland Street
residents were under some sort of supervision - however, the Boardman
Street resident isn't; being so close to a grade school should concern
the residents of our town even more.
To RD - we did move tot town over a decade ago and I'm still enjoying the
cows and chickens waking us up at 5 in the morning! I hope this never
changes!
- KR
11/9 8:48am
I have to respond and support what JC has said. I am a Master's Level
Psychotherapist and I have worked with too many women that have been
sexually abused as children. Not one of those women were victims of
strangers. They were all victims of relatives or friends of relatives.
- DN
11/8 10:53pm
With regards to the fury over the sex offenders who reside in Norfolk, I
think we should start identifying alcoholics who live near our children,
or, heck -- live near any of us, because they might drive drunk and hit
one of our kids playing out on the front lawn. Or how about identifying
those people who have a shoplifting conviction -- they might steal from
our mailboxes. Or how about those who smoked cigarettes (or worse!)
when they were teenagers or who drank some of their parents' liquor
before they were 21? -- They, too could be a danger to our kids! The
point is, folks, we cannot keep limiting other people's rights (yes,
even people who have been convicted of sex crimes have rights!) because
WE want to feel safe. Besides, I understand that it is much more likely
that a sexual predator is already known to the victim -- I'd want to be
much more careful of "Friendly Uncle Frank" or "Cousin Charlie" than a
mentally challenged individual who is under 24 hour supervision.
- JC
11/8 2:11pm
I read about the removal of the level 2 sex offenders from the halfway
house on Cleveland Street, and I am surprised at the people in this
community. Did we all forget about the level 3 sex offender living within
walking distance to the Freeman Centennial school? As a parent it
concerns me a little bit more that a level 3 sex offender is allowed to
live in a home on a street housing a school and walk the streets as
though he never did anything wrong - a little bit more than supervised
level 2 offenders who have a curfew and people to answer to. Where are
people's priorities? I have 3 boys, 2 of whom go to school, one of whom
goes to Freeman Centennial, and let me tell you Michael N. concerns me
more than the level 2 offenders do. My oldest son played football at the
Freeman as well and I never left him on the property a minute alone due
to this man living on Boardman Street. Apparently the parents who did and
do leave their kids alone there know nothing about Michael N. and
should familiarize themselves with him on the Franklin PD web site. He is
a lot more dangerous than those who would have been supervised on
Cleveland.
Just my 2 cents on the situation.
- RD
11/1 4:04pm
To MJD: Like I said it was a "small" victory for us. I agree with you
about Delta Projects. They do not care where they place their sex
offenders, but Senator Scott Brown does. He has a bill being held up in
the house by Representative Angelo Scaccia. It is Senate Docket #2628.
It has to do with the placement of sex offenders in group homes as well
as changing the level of sex offenders who molest children, and
restricting sex offenders from living within 1.5 miles from a school,
licensed day care or playgrounds. If you want more information about
this bill, I will be happy to provide it to you or you can call Senator
Brown's office. We have been trying to reach Scaccia since July to see
why he is holding up this bill, but he has not returned any of our
telephone calls. We even went to his office personally to speak with
him, and he, again, never returned our calls. His number is
617-722-2692. Feel free to call him and ask him to release the bill.
Again, Senator Brown is
trying to move forward to protect our children and the victims of these
sexual predators, and people like Angelo Scaccia are preventing this
important bill from passing. I have been involved in this since March,
so if you have any more questions, please feel free to ask me. I don't
have all the answers, but I do have a few. Thanks for your concern
- SD
10/31 11:53pm
To SD - a victory for us perhaps, but what about the next unsuspecting
neighborhood where these sex offenders are placed? An irresponsible
agency like Delta doesn't change its stripes just because a legislator
makes a deal to get them out of town. It sounds like the resolution is
about this situation, not the way in which sex offenders are placed in
group homes. Is there some future suggested legislation? I am unclear
here?
- MJD
10/31 8:11am
TO MJD - We were not given all the details of the meeting and the
discussions that took place in that meeting. In the Sun Chronicle
yesterday, they said that they were still working on all the details.
They might in the future tell us where they are moving to, but they also
might not in order to protect their clients' privacy issues. This was
just one small victory. We still need to see to it that laws are passed
for the placement of sex offenders in the State of Massachusetts, so
something like this cannot happen again.
- SD
10/30 8:15pm
SD - What will they do with the sex offenders? To what town will they
relocate them? Was this discussed in the agreement? Just curious.
- MJD
10/30 8:09pm
Congratulations to Cleveland St folks (and others) for their tireless
work.
Thank you Senator Scott Brown!!
- PC
10/30 2:17pm
To those of you in Norfolk who have not heard the recent news, I want to
let you know that through much hard work on the part of State Senator
Scott Brown and all of our town officials, the level two sex offenders
in the group home on Cleveland Street are going to be re-located within
six to eight weeks. The home will remain a group home for three
mentally retarded individuals, who are not sex offenders. The home will
never again house sex offenders per an agreement with the Department of
Mental Retardation. We will welcome these new residents to our
community with open arms. I am very proud of the work that has been
done by Senator Brown and our town officials, and would like to thank
each and every one of them. Because of their efforts, the children of
Norfolk will be safer.
- SD
