Ah, now that the elections are over, I can turn my attention to the silliness in Danbury again and the new round of garbage from Mayor Boughton makes me want to laugh.

Convicted child sex offenders will be banned from parks, playgrounds, sports fields, swimming pools and other "child safety zones" under a proposed city ordinance that attempts to balance child protection with the rights of convicted sex offenders.

The Common Council will introduce the ordinance today at its monthly meeting, and a public hearing is expected sometime this month.

The impetus for the city ordinance was Mayor Mark Boughton, who began looking into a possible ordinance this summer after reading about other communities across the country that have adopted similar measures.

"It's an ordinance that creates child safety zones throughout the city, and although it's not an outright way to end any problems, it makes it easier to manage," Boughton said.

Now, let me explain things folks. Not that I'm not for this but lets thing about this for a second.

* 2007 and the mayoral election is right around the corner.

* Boughton has polled people regarding how he stands a chance in being re-elected against several Democrats.

* Boughton is worried about the Republican majority being called a NO-NOTHING party.

* Boughton is looking for anything positive to place on his campaign mailers.

Now please take that into consideration when you see all the things coming down the pipe right now. Want more proof? Lets take a look at tonight's Common Council agenda.

24 – AD HOC REPORT & ORDINANCE - Parades and Public Assemblies
_________________________________________________________________________
25 – AD HOC REPORT & ORDINANCE - Danbury Housing Partnership
_________________________________________________________________________
26 – AD HOC REPORT & ORDINANCE - Sex Offender Ordinance
_________________________________________________________________________
27 – AD HOC REPORT - Affordable Housing Inventory
_________________________________________________________________________
28 – AD HOC REPORT - Road Cut - 125 Long Ridge Road
_________________________________________________________________________
29 – AD HOC REPORT - Request for Sewer Line – 4 Stadley Rough Road
_________________________________________________________________________
30 – AD HOC REPORT - Conveyance of Land – 2 Garry Knolls
_________________________________________________________________________
31 - AD HOC REPORT - Sewer and Water Extension – Reynolds Road
_________________________________________________________________________
32 - AD HOC REPORT - Sewer Extension – Westville Avenue Ext
_________________________________________________________________________
33 - AD HOC REPORT - Sewer Extension – 7 Great Pasture Road
_________________________________________________________________________
34- AD HOC REPORT - Sports Entertainment Complex
_________________________________________________________________________
35 - AD HOC REPORT - Grant Agency Review Board

That's a lot of ad-hoc committee reports huh? I wonder if this has anything to do with next year's election...

Look, here's the deal. Boughton and the Republicans want to show that they're actually doing something when they haven't really done ANYTHING. With people like Elizabeth Putnam from the News-Times and common citizens coming down to record the Common Council meetings, Boughton NOW wants to give the impression that he actually doing something besides looking for a new way to exploit the illegal immigration issue.

DON'T BE FOOLED.

Trust me, I've been closely follwoing the activities in Danbury for the last six years and I can honestly tell you that there needs to be a change in the way things are done in Danbury. Although this bill looks nice on paper, it's more politics than anything else.

DON'T BE FOOLED.

UPDATE: Seems like some readers at the News-Times aren't taking Boughton's bait.

I don't need to have a better idea to know a bad idea when I see one.

It's the mayor and the common council's job to come up something that will work. Proposing something that is going to have zero effect is wasteful.

The mayor said he got the idea from other towns who have passed a similar law. Well why doesn't hizzoner ask those other towns about the results of such laws? Has it had any effect?

The attorney who wrote the ordinance and the Criminal Justice professor both said it will not deter sex offenders.

So please tell me what possible reason is there for having a law that will not do what it is proposed to do except that Mayor Mark can use it in next year's election.

[...]

This looks like a law to campaign on as in "I am tough on sex offenders" when really it does not look like it can possibly accomplish anything.

[...]

Laws that can't be enforced except selectively or by profiling are nothing more than politics. It's meant to give an illusion of doing something when it's more than likely going to be ignored or imposed after the damage is done.

[...]

Do we really need another "sounds good, but really isn't going to do anything about the problem" ordinance?

A potential $100 fine is not going to deter a sexual predator considering that the odds of actually getting caught are very slim and the punishment minimal.

After this passes, I'd like to see a report the next year as to how many people were actually given summons under this ordinance.

Balance that with the cost of writing and passing this legislation and it seems like a waste of time and money.

The people aren't buying it and they shouldn't.

DON'T BE FOOLED!