I read in the paper today that another community in our area is worried about sex offenders moving en masse to their area. The local leaders passed an ordinance that says these offenders cannot live within 1000 feet of a child care facility. I understand the townsfolk's concern, but I don't understand the rationale of the 1000 feet. If a sex offender lives in an apartment that is 995 feet from a child care facility, then he is a threat. But, if he lives in an apartment that is 1005 feet away, then he is not. Also, what about a sex offender who lives 5000 feet away but is on the route many children take on their way to and from school. Wouldn't he be a threat. I have no issue with communities taking action to protect their children, but I feel this is just another example of a governmental agency doing something just for the sake of doing something, and this ordinance really will have no effect one way or the other. Also, I feel there should be a distinction made between sex offenders based on the offense. A nineteen-year old who has sex with a fifteen year old who snuck into a fraternity or college party is technically guilty of having sex with a minor, but this is not the same thing as someone who seduces small children. They should not be treated the same. The nineteen-year old can be branded for life for an act that wasn't even his fault. I feel each case should be looked at individually and not all just lumped together.