Like it or not, these are the facts and as citizens and tax paying members of this community we absolutely have a duty not to ignore this.

SHARE's vehement refusal to run the checks here in Ballard when they are running them for their Tent City 4 begs the question-WHY?

They claim in their “statement/letter” for this article that it is “un-American” yet they have been running them for Tent City 4 since 2004?

Smoke and mirrors. One can reasonably conclude that their steadfast refusal to run the checks here is Ballard means they have something to hide.

It was only because of an alert “My Ballard” forum post by “shanedillon” that we even know that there was a Level 3 sex offender/child rapist there. That post is what led to the sex offender being asked to leave, not SHARE “discovering” it. It was only discovered after it was made public in this forum.

These checks need to be ran immediately, or this shelter needs to be evicted. Plain and simple.

If there is one place in a shelter and you have some person that has worked hard all their life, never been in trouble, and lost their job/home, and you have another who is a drug addict rapist that has been in prison before and caused nothing but misery to the people around him, who should we give the place to?

To me the answer seems pretty obvious.

Why not help the people that have been 'good' and are in exactly the same situation as the people that have been 'bad'? I just don't get all this compassion towards Level 3 sex offenders.

Have a shelter with conditions that need to be followed and I doubt anyone would have a problem.

Keep Ballard a nice place, don't invite rotten apples into our basket to spoil the good fruit here. People don't all have the right to live wherever they like.

again, only the awareness of a citizen brought this to light, SHARE only reacted after it was public. maybe they knew? maybe not….who knows.

fact is, they broke their word to the neighborhood.

Who said this guy was unregistered? Because you do realize he was, right? That's where the classification comes in and they are all required to register upon their release. Who said he was unsupervised? Because as part of their release they are on SUPERVISED parole/probation.

It is amazing how scary the world can be when you add the words “what if” huh? Don't let your imagination get the best of you Teddie.

That being said, I do sincerely empathize with your wife's situation. It is great she's been able to move on and she is most certainly entitled to her opinion on the matter.

To all the chicken little's out there i understand your concern. However, outside of stigmatizing and locking people up for life even after they've paid their debt to society, your sentiment really is that you don't want them near you. The “I don't really care where they go but they can't stay here” approach is going to fix the problem huh? I know what, why don't we just put them all on an island together. Better yet why don't we just put you on an island where you will be safe, isolated and never at risk of anything bad happening. I wish we could.

Like it or not homeless people are still people. Contrary to what you may believe, even sex offenders are still people. As such, while they deserve very little in my opinion, the do deserve the opportunity to receive treatment, try to rebuild their lives, better themselves and try to move on after paying their debt to society. Assuming they remain in compliance with the orders of their release, whether this takes place in a homeless shelter, halfway house, apartment or condo is up to them and their parole officer, not you. Whether this is agreeable to you or not is irrelevant. This is fact, this is what they deserve and are guaranteed in this country as a human being. Who are you to deny them this simply because they try to carry it out in the vicinity of your home? But then again, here's to you and your utopian little island.

Thank you to vdog, bellie and the others who were sensible enough to do some research rather than immediately picking up their pitchfork and torch.

This is the definition as stated word for word by almost all of the states:-

“These offenders pose a potential high risk to the community and are a threat to re-offend if provided the opportunity. Most have prior sex crime convictions as well as other criminal convictions. Their lifestyles and choices place them in this classification. Some have predatory characteristics and may seek out victims. They may have refused or failed to complete approved treatment programs.”

The people IN the shelter RUN the shelter. This is SHARE's whole schtick, so-called 'freedom from the man', ie. zero accountability, zero personal responsibility, no services, no job training, no drug, alcohol or sexual offender therapy. Just a group self-hug for vagrants.

The folks in the shelter are the ones to blame for letting this child rapist stay.

SHARE broke that agreement and allowed someone to break the law.

If the neighborhood would have agreed to a shelter that allowed offenders, then I wouldn't be so annoyed.

And the molly-coddling to which I referred has to do with all sorts of personal choices (not diseases, but often simple choices) that, hiding behind the veil of “progressive” ideas and “tolerance,” allows sex-offenders and criminals to hang-out in your library, in your park, on your bus, on your sidewalk cafe chairs and make life miserable for productive, contributing people who have to pay for them in many, many ways.

It is mostly about the risk they present, a level III is pretty much expected to commit sexual crimes in the future.

http://ml.waspc.org/FAQ.aspx

Now, if they think, like you, that child rapists have a right to live near schools, playgrounds and day care centers, right in the middle of a residential neighborhood filled with families, then you and SHARE can go back to Pastor Grumm and his church members and let them vote on opening a shelter for level 3 sex offenders in their church. After that, Pastor Grumm can then go out and try to find the insurance needed to open such a center.