The city became the first community in the state Tuesday to bar convicted sex offenders from city-run recreation areas, but a gap that weakens the measure remains and questions linger about whether the new ordinance will uphold in court.
The Common Council voted 18-1 to adopt an ordinance that prohibits people who have been convicted of sexual offenses from about 40 parks, playgrounds, sports fields and other recreational facilities controlled by the city...
Mayor Mark Boughton [...] said the ordinance sends a message to the community that the city cares about its children.
"It's something, and it's better than nothing," Boughton said. (Putnam)
It's vague, mostly unenforceable (how do you keep someone out of a park?, full of holes and may not stand up in court. There's also little evidence that this new ordinance-- indeed, that laws restricting the movements and residency of sex offenders in general-- will actually protect children. In fact, sometimes strict requirements like this either lead sex offenders to go to another town which doesn't have these laws, or become homeless and disappear from sight (and from the registry).
Therefore, kudos to Danbury for passing a law that actually isn’t better than nothing.
Putnam, Elizabeth. "Danbury bars sex offenders from parks." Danbury News-Times 6 December, 2006.