Offender bylaw delayed

Dedham Town Meeting, in what members saw as an effort to protect the town's children and elderly, voted in May to, in effect, declare about 76 percent of the town off-limits to sex offenders.

The declaration came in the form of a new ordinance that prevents sex offenders from establishing residency within 1,000 feet of schools, parks, elderly housing complexes, and places of worship -- pretty much anywhere children and the elderly congregate. It also forbids sex offenders to loiter within 300 feet of specific sites such as parks and bus stops. Taken together, that adds up to more than three-quarters of the town.

But more than 90 days after the vote, the ordinance has yet to become law. The state attorney general's office, which approves the legality of Town Meeting articles, has asked for more time to review the restrictions and has requested additional information from the town's geographic mapping system.

The ordinance could have statewide implications.

The delay in state approval is raising questions about whether Attorney General Martha Coakley, who took office in January, will support such residency restrictions, which have been both celebrated and sharply criticized in the handful of Massachusetts communities that have enacted them as well as in other cities and towns nationwide.

The ordinances have drawn the ire of civil libertarians and law enforcement officials, who accuse communities of ushering in a Colonial-era practice of banishing residents. Such a Draconian measure, they say, could discourage sex offenders from complying with sex offender registry laws or from seeking treatment, for fear of being kicked out of their homes or prevented from basic errands or visits to family.

The Dedham vote offers Coakley one of the first opportunities to analyze the legal and social implications of the residency restrictions and to take an official position on it. During her first eight months, mostly cities -- not towns -- have passed the residency restrictions, and those votes don't require attorney general approval.

Coakley has expressed concerns that Dedham's ordinance could have statewide implications, said Dedham Town Administrator William Keegan in summarizing discussions between Dedham's town counsel and the attorney general's office.

"She wants to make sure it's an enforceable bylaw and within constitutional limits," Keegan said.

Coakley's office could take an additional 90 days to review the ordinance, said Harry Pierre, a spokesman for the attorney general's office. He said the office originally requested the maps and other information from Dedham within the 90 days following the vote, but the town didn't provide the material. Pierre said he couldn't comment further about the review or whether Coakley would support the ordinance or any piece of it.

During the past two years, communities such as Fitchburg, Marlborough, Revere, and West Boylston have restricted residency of sex offenders, while Framingham, Shrewsbury, and a growing number of others west of Boston are contemplating it. The ordinances can create a domino effect in a region because nearby communities often perceive the communities imposing the restrictions as chasing sex offenders out of their towns and into the others. The ordinances could essentially leave a sex offender with few or no options to live in a community or even a region because the provisions often form overlapping circles of restricted areas. The ordinances work similar to drug-free school zones, except that the residency restrictions tend to apply to a much larger number of buildings, sometimes even shopping malls.

Dedham, which covers less than 11 square miles, boasts at least 10 public and private schools, including the 187-acre Noble and Greenough School. There also are nearly a dozen public parks, and a number of churches, day-care centers, and elderly housing complexes, most notably the HebrewSenior Life housing and care center, under construction on 160 acres.

Even with 24 percent of Dedham open to residency for sex offenders, it's unclear how much of that land is inhabitable because it includes cemeteries and acres of conservation land.

Don Reisner, chairman of the town Parks and Recreation Commission, started researching residency restrictions last year after reading a story in a local newspaper about a sex offender living in front of a bus stop in another town. Initially, Reisner sought to restrict establishing a residency within 2,000 feet of schools and other places that cater to children and the elderly, but it was reduced to 1,000 feet on Town Meeting floor.

Violations carry fines that range from $300 to $750, along with stipulations that violators must move from town.

"You can never let your guard down, but anything extra we can do I'm all for it," Reisner said.

Reisner thinks Dedham's ordinance could be pushing the envelope of restrictions by forbidding sex offenders to loiter within 300 feet of a park or bus stops. He said that provision is not part of West Boylston's bylaw, which received approval from former attorney general Thomas Reilly and on which Reisner largely based Dedham's ordinance.

"I think the attorney general's office just wants to dot their I's and cross their T's," Reisner said of the delay.

Other cities have similar loitering restrictions in their ordinances.

There is a notable loophole, though, in many of these residency restriction ordinances, including the one in Dedham: A grandfather clause enabling sex offenders who lived in town before the ordinances passed to remain there.

A Globe search of the Massachusetts Sex Offender Registry Board's online database this month revealed 23 registered sex offenders living or working in Dedham who are classified at levels 2 and 3, which indicates moderate to high risk of re-offending.

The grandfather clauses prompt some critics to write off the ordinances as "feel-good legislation." But at the same time, many critics worry that the ordinances could prevent sex offenders from moving in with family when support is needed the most for a better recovery.

Nevertheless, critics and supporters expect residency restrictions to increase nationwide.

"The reason why these proposals have such currency is because people are scared and want to do something, but fear does not produce a good remedy," said John Reinstein, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts. "These ordinances give the illusion of providing protection while not providing real protection."

In some cases nationwide, the residency restrictions have created a kind of buyer's remorse, said David Finkelhor, director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire. Some communities, he said, push forward with the ordinances, even though some local leaders have reservations.

"It's hard for public officials to be opposed to it," Finkelhor said. "Nobody wants to be seen as coddling child molesters or sex offenders."

James Vaznis can be reached at vaznis@globe.com.