Our Redeemers: ‘More than deeply saddened’

Over the weekend, a Level III sex offender was removed from the SHARE homeless shelter at Calvary Lutheran church. Pastor Steve Grumm of Our Redeemer’s Lutheran Church, which oversees the Calvary property, told us today that he is “more than deeply saddened by this.”

“It’s not only a surprise, but an alarm,” he said. Grumm said he’s held several conversations since the weekend with SHARE about the organization’s screening process, which does not include sex offender background checks. “They seem open to additional accountability,” Grumm said, adding that the task force set up to monitor the shelter plans to meet with SHARE later this week. Neighborhood representatives of the task force are demanding that sex offender checks “be immediately implemented,” but a SHARE representative told us on Monday that the sex offender incident “doesn’t change anything.”

“We had something going,” Pastor Grumm says about how well the Calvary Lutheran shelter was running before this weekend. “Neighbors were even bringing residents food.” Grumm said he plans to meet with neighbors next week after he’s spoken more in-depth with SHARE.

Geeky Swedes

The founders of My Ballard

109 thoughts to “Our Redeemers: ‘More than deeply saddened’”

  1. sigh, ok i'll bite. just what sort of “additional accountability” are they up for, short of screening for dangerous sex offenders?

    and make no mistake, level 3 sex offenders have done bad, bad things.

    this entire conversation would be moot if dumb SHARE would simply screen for these offenders – but they know better, somehow, on who may or may not be dangerous?

    also, pastor grumm can publicly wring his hands but maybe its time to actually listen to the neighborhood.

    ****disclaimer. i don't have kids and was originally open to this whole thing. now, uhhhh….

  2. How about Pastor Grumm telling them they must do sex offender checks if they want to remain on the church premises? If he made it a condition, they would have to be “open” to it if they wanted to remain. I can't believe that isn't the Pastor's immediate reaction. It is unfathomable to me that he would not want to protect the church neighbors & other residents of the shelter. What is he waiting for? A sexual assault? You could be assured the shelter would be shut down then.

  3. SHARE continues to hold no accountability in this situation and should be evicted. period. one time is one too many. don't get me started w/priests and shuffling around offenders…..

  4. Level III sex offenders have either raped children or raped women and and are considered by law enforcement a no-doubt to re-offend. Level III's are most likely to escalate to rape and then murder. How can any neighborhood allow this type of risk near its children? The fault lies with the judicial system that should not be letting these monsters back out on to the street. However, in the mean time, neighbors need to protect themselves. This type of monster gives the other members of SHARE a bad, and hopefully unwanted, stigma.

  5. At least MyBallard got a response.

    I was the one that reported this to Steve Grumm last Friday and he promised to get back to me. I have sent several emails (all very polite and respectful) and have yet to get a reply.

  6. No. No. No. NO NO NO! Sorry, but I am not ashamed to say NOT IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD. The church is smack dab between two elementary schools. I understand that they feel their mission has a responsibility to care for people who are having trouble caring for themselves, but c'mon. You can't just decide you're going to plop a huge risk into the middle of a neighborhood without taking major precautions because of your chosen religious mission. I can't suddenly decide to house something on my property that poses a risk to my neighbors. Why is the church allowed to do so? Are they then liable if someone is hurt because of their negligence? If I was a member of this church, I would be very concerned about the liability and demand precautions be taken.

    Cripes. Thanks, Calvary. Way to Love Thy Neighbor…

  7. This is simply too much. “more than deeply saddened”? Seriously? I certainly hope you guys are not falling for this. It is time for some serious thought about how we can pressure him legally or pr wise into immediately getting these people out. Perhaps we can make a concerted effort to get people to start leaving his church over this.

  8. I am saddened that Pastor Grumm has enough power to keep such an unaccountable organization within this neighborhood. I once felt safe with churches on all of the corners. Now I fear for the children at the parks, schools, women walking the streets, etc. and all of this has been brought to us by a church! A pastor! And all the neighborhood asked for was sex offender checks! This is beyond infuriating and I hope Grumm is ashamed for not listening or taking a stand.

  9. The SHARE rep is wrong. This changes EVERYTHING. Now, because they have allowed this Level 3 sex offender and still refuse to do the neighbor requested checks, the whole shelter project is in danger of being forced out by angry neighbors.
    Neighbors to the church have every right to be angry but it makes me sad to think those in the shelter who aren't sex offenders may be adversely effected by this.

  10. It is time for Our Redeemer's to demand that the shelter be run in a way that is safe for the neighborhood. That means telling SHARE that they must check for sex offenders in their screening process.

    I am sure I am not the only one who is tired of hearing empty words from Pastor Steve.

  11. The church members need to INSIST that SHARE be EVICTED AT ONCE.
    Perhaps some signs, one on each corner of the block, that say, CAUTION: SEX OFFENDER RESIDES AT CALVARY LUTHERAN. That will get get the message across to those attending Sunday.

    THIS is why bums/homeless should never be allowed to infest neighborhoods.

    SHARE is not concerned about the church or its members or the folks in the neighborhood or the transients they “help”. SHARE is concerned about keeping itself in business. If they actually implemented any of these background checks I doubt a quarter of the folks there would be there.

  12. The full quote:

    Pastor Steve Grumm of Our Redeemer’s Lutheran Church, which oversees the Calvary property, told us today that he is “more than deeply saddened by this.” He went on, “But we're still fine with those whacky guys at SHARE bringing large numbers of unsupervised lowlifes and dumping them on the streets of Ballard, because, well, you know, no local kids have been raped yet. So, we see no problem. Local neighbors can go to hell, we plan to continue bringing these creeps here. Try and stop us, just try!”

  13. Since these evil turkeys invited the scum of the earth to visit our neihborhood my wife and children have been accosted by crazy people more than once within a few blocks of the “church”. We steer clear now. Ruined. Thanks redeemers.

  14. Here is what I don't understand.

    In order to volunteer at the church run school in a capacity that has NO INVOLVEMENT OR INTERACTION WITH KIDS I had to give al my personal info for a State Patrol check (I volunteer inthe evening literally 2 hours after the last kid has left the building in a clerical type capacity – I never see a kid) So to live at the church the “guests” don't have to have any background check? I don't get it.

  15. Oh brother…

    Even the sex offenders in Ballard…

    have Facebook pages…

    We should all be compassionate and considerate of our fellow man (err… weirdo).

    But when you gullible-naive-liberal-Seattle-bleeding-hearts start molly coddling people with anti-social behavior (and their apologists at places like SHARE), then don't be so surprised when this crap happens.

    Help a guy down on his luck? Sure. Feed someone who's having a rough patch? Sure.

    But give food, clothing, shelter, park recreation, library Wi-Fi and a bus pass to a 12-time criminal, who raped a child? C'mon. Stop falling for the do-gooder party line. Virtually all of Seattle's “problem” stems from it too soft on vagrants and petty criminals.

    If you keep feeding the pigeons, you're gonna' get crapped on.

  16. Insane registry laws and restrictions did not prevent the perverts, Philip Garridoan and his wife from doing what they did! The registry laws, and especially the residency / work place restrictions, have done far more harm than good. Forget about all the cases of vigilantism and suicide; forget about the fact that while these laws are proposed to protect the children, they include children, while a huge percentage of those on the list committed crimes that had nothing to do with children; forget about the fact that study after study has proven these laws not only are ineffective, but have actually made matters worse. Forget about the fact that upon release from custody, registered sex offenders have one of the lowest recidivism rates, not the highest. In fact those who receive counseling and treatment have outstanding records versus those convicted of other violent crimes! The fact is the registry and any restrictions should be limited to those who are proven child molesters and pedophiles; that Law Enforcement could handle and monitor effectively. Do you seriously believe a committed pedophile cannot walk or drive 500, 1000, 2500, 5000 feet or more? Jaycee Lee Dugard was abducted miles from where Philip Garrido lived!

    I am sure we will see comments from hysterical, uninformed individual(s) who will suggest that all those on the registry should be locked up for life or worse and say there is no rehabilitation for these people. And for a few they are right, we need to focus on those! Once a person has done their time that should be it. That is the foundation of this great country and its legal system. Don’t like it, move to China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, or wherever individual rights are ignored. If a person is a pedophile, lock them up for a long time and provide treatment. Treatment not working, keep them locked up. Many families are being destroyed for political expediency; children of those on the registry are being abused and ostracized at school. Whole families are forced into isolation and restricted from the work place. If the registry is to truly protect the children, then let’s focus on the pedophiles and child molesters’. Get rid of the residency/work place restrictions, focus on the loitering laws. Let the rest on the registry re-assimilate into society after they have done their time, become solid, productive citizens; part of the solution not the problem. The facts, (and the Garrido case) as well as virtually all of the research, and study after study have proven what we are doing now, mostly for political expediency and to appease hysterical uninformed parents is not working and is in fact making matters worse!

  17. Who exactly do you mean by “you gullible-naive…” — to my count absolutely no one on this thread has advocated for SHARE or the “molly coddling” of sex offenders.

    But don't let me stand in the way of your apparently needed buff-up of your superiority complex.

  18. There is a big difference between Level 3, Level 2, and Level 1. If you put them all together, yes the re-offending numbers are low, but Level 3 offenders are listed as likely to offend.

  19. “Forget about the fact that upon release from custody, registered sex offenders have one of the lowest recidivism rates, not the highest. “

    Wow, you just managed to contradict your whole argument against registering sex offenders.

    Rapists and pedophiles salute your efforts though.

  20. And over 800 Level 3 Sex Offenders have been released from prison, or had their convictions overturned through DNA evidence. In fact, even several hundred convicted murders have had their conviction overturned by DNA, (SOME AFTER THEIR EXECUTION!)

    In many states, like Georgia, a conviction involving a minor is automatically classified as level 3, including the 17 yr. old convicted of having sex (oral, manual, or traditional), receiving texed photos of his 16 yr. old girl friend, and they register for LIFE!

  21. Funny you should suggest; FACT 95+% of all sex offenses and child molestation incidents are committed by immediate family, relatives, close friends, and trusted acquaintances. Less than 5% by strangers, and less than 1/2 of 1% by convicted sex offenders. Please do the research, there are dozens of sites, reports and studies. Hysterical knee jerk reactions are not the answer!

  22. Thank you for pointing out my misstatement. Upon further review of the most recent study, they did not state “registered” sex offenders, they included all convicted sex offenders.

    May I suggest some sites providing reliable information such as; Voice of Reason, ACLU, Reform Sex Offender Laws, and Constitutionalfights.org.

  23. I just checked SPD registered sex offender database and there are 6 offenders living within one mile of the church (I checked the details on three and they all had offenses for child rape). I'm surprised at the comments implying that the neighborhood has suddenly been ruined or become dangerous because one offender was discovered in a shelter. That's a bit of a head-in-the-sand approach to the problem. Having said that, however, I would feel much safer if Level III offenders never saw the light of day outside of prison.

  24. I guess I shouldn't be surprised you can't figure out the difference. We can locate the neighborhood offenders on the database, we reply on the honesty of SHARE for the puss in the church.

  25. You didn't know about one offender because the church/SHARE didn't tell you; what about the other six whose information is available online? I'm wondering why there is no uproar over their existence in the neighborhood?

  26. thanks bellie for setting the rest of these clowns straight.

    you don't live in utopia, folks. these offenders are all around you all the time. get your collective heads out of your nimby a** and maybe stop worrying about a church trying to help people.

  27. Because they are listed. We have no idea about the 20 men in the shelter because SHARE does not do sex offender checks and many sex offenders go off the radar by living in shelters.

    See the difference? My 4 yr old can.

  28. aren't you learning about this through the news media?

    what, is Myballard chopped liver or something?
    do you expect CNN or Foxnews to cover this?

  29. They aren't “clowns”. I understand their concern. What I don't understand is the fear that the neighborhood is on a downhill slide or suddenly dangerous because of this one incident. These people are a part of our lives, unfortunately. They are everywhere. Wanting to shut down an operation that helps the homeless because of this one incident is misplaced. The man has been removed from the shelter (and possibly just down the street to the next shelter–who knows?).

  30. I'll accept that sex offenders probably do go off the radar by living in shelters. I'm sure there are many more sex offenders around us off the radar for many other reasons, such as not being caught yet.

    Now this one man is not in the shelter in your neighborhood, but is likely on the street or in a shelter in another neighborhood. I guess this is better for you and your 4-year-old, but not for the community as a whole.

    I would like to see sex offenders kept in jail for life, but this does not happen and likely never will. I don't have to have someone do checks to know that there are probably sex offenders, drug addicts, thieves, etc. within a few yards of my home, no matter where I live. I am, however, grateful that someone does the difficult, sometimes discouraging work of caring for the homeless because frankly I don't make the time to do so. Do you?

  31. The fact is, part of the agreement with neighbors, both the church and SHARE said they would no house sex offenders. Whether you agree with that or not, that is what they said.

    They did say if there were any 'instances' (can you call this an instance?) then they would close the shelter.

    I am upset as I was lied too.

  32. It's not a church. It's a vacant church (Calvary) that is owned by the Lutheran Church and overseen by another church (Our Reedeemer's). No one is there during the day, and no church services are performed in the building.

  33. Bellie,
    I am a very close neighbor and my main concern is the incredible disrespect that Our Redeemer's and SHARE have shown our neighborhood. Pastor Steve is rude and dismissive, even when people write or speak to him politely about their concerns. He is especially condescending to women who dare to open their mouths. I don't believe that “self policing” works, and I don't know the answer. Sex offenders can be dangerous, no matter where they are, in shelters or safely within society. I just want some accountability and respect from the church.

  34. Sorry, Capt., but that won't help, as the Sunday worshippers will be a few miles away at Our Redeemer's. The Calvary Lutheran building has no congregation and no Sunday services.

  35. Actually, youre completely wrong. Tier One offenders actually have the highest rate of recidivism , while Tier Three offenders (the worst level) have the lowest rate.


    Freeman, Naomi J. and Sadler, Jeffrey C. (2009). The Adam Walsh Act:
    A False Sense of Security or an Effective Public Policy?
    Criminal Justice Policy Review, Online First. Sage (subscription required)
    Publications, 10.1177/0887403409338565.

    “With the enactment of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act (AWA), states are required to standardize their registration and community notification practices by categorizing sex offenders into
    three-tier levels in the interest of increasing public safety. No empirical research, however, has investigated whether implementation of the AWA is likely to increase public safety. Using a sample of registered sex offenders in New York State, the current study examined the effectiveness of the Adam Walsh-tier system to classify offenders by likelihood of recidivism. Results indicated that the AWA falls short of increasing public safety. In fact, registered sex offenders classified by AWA as Tier 1 (lowest risk) were rearrested for both nonsexual and sexual offenses more than sex offenders in Tier 2 (moderate risk) or Tier 3 (highest risk).”

    ( I wish you people who want to kill sex offenders would at least get your facts straight)

  36. I'm sure they did and I'm also sure they still mean it. A sex offender sneaked in (probably because he lied), was discovered, and removed. Should the entire shelter be closed because of it? SHARE made it clear that they would not do background checks and the congregation voted to invite the shelter in anyway. Perhaps your upset should be directed at your neighbors–the members of the congregation?

  37. The key difference here is that the known sex offenders in the neighborhood are exactly that…known. We know where they are and the police know where they are and the registered sex offenders know that the police know where they are.
    The sex offender, Level 3 mind you, who goes to a shelter where he can hide out and know that he isn't being tracked can feel like they're more likely to get away something as they're not being tracked.

    The real point here isn't whether they're out on the street or not, it's that the neighborhood was concerned that the shelter would bring more sex offenders into a school/park area and that SHARE wasn't willing to do any background checks to prevent it. SHARE then said they wouldn't allow sex offenders in the shelter, but they in fact have.

  38. Hmmm… Is it possible this is just as rude and dismissive as Pastor Grumm is being?

    Intelligent dialogue gets a LOT further than slinging mud. I don't know what information can be gotten from the sites Vdog mentions, but NAMBLA would have a website (if they do)advocating vicious criminal behavior. Hardly seems like a realistic comparison. Just a thought.

  39. The congregation voted against the shelter. I am upset with both SHARE and Steve Grumm. The shelter should be run by the church with their rules, and SHARE should have nothing to do with the shelter as they have had this problem before.

    Their screening does not work, and I do not want anymore sex offenders in my neighborhood. Would I drive out an offender if he bought the house next door to me? Absolutely! I would put up posters and tell all the other neighbors till he moved away.

  40. Thanks, Kelly. I think you're the only person who has responded to me so far without saying something rude.

    I have lived in your neighborhood (and loved it) and still live close by.

    I haven't spoken to the pastor (and have not had pleasant experiences with churches or pastors in the past), but his congregation did vote to admit SHARE and its shelter. I imagine his job is pretty thankless, but that does not entitle him to rudeness or sexism. I'm glad someone is making an effort for the homeless, however.

  41. The Compass Center is in the planning stages of building a 7 story facility just blocks from here. Though there is some NIMBYesque complaining about that, most people aren't too upset about it as Compass is trying to do something to end homelessness and really help people get out of that rut and into a better life.
    SHARE by contrast does nothing to get it's members out of homelessness and does not even see being homeless as anything other than a lifestyle choice that's A-OK by them. Add to that the fact that SHARE has lied, been confrontational, and not been a good neighbor, and you see why people are upset.

  42. Bellie,
    The actual meeting at which the congregation voted was not held during services, and was attended by a very small number of parishoners. This is Steve Grumm's baby, and he is a poor neighbor, and in my opinion, not a very sensitive or useful pastor.

  43. bellie, the problem isn't that a sex offender lied to SHARE, it's that SHARE lied to the community.
    The congregation isn't exactly neighbors as this church hasn't been used as a church in some time. From what I've heard the congregation didn't exactly welcome the shelter, but pastor Grumm did.
    SHARE said they wouldn't allow sex offenders, but they did. Did they do any due diligence to prevent a sex offender? It looks like they did not.

  44. Grumm's surprised? He needs to separate his ideals from the facts and realize that he's just a tool for SHARE. SHARE will not give into any real background checks because it's not favorable to them. Grummsville lives on.

  45. SHARE was likely duped by this sex offender. I wouldn't call them liars just because they were lied to. Besides the creep was removed and is now under the radar again maybe in another neighborhood or maybe not. That's what I find upsetting. I wish he were still behind bars.

  46. For so many homeless (and I'm not saying all) it is a lifestyle choice. I think it's helpful to acknowledge the fact and provide assistance to them as well rather than pretend all the homeless want to or can be changed. It will benefit us all in the long run.

  47. “A sex offender sneaked in (probably because he lied), was discovered, and removed.”

    Yes, and if it hadn't been for alert neighbors, SHARE would still have this level 3 pedophile sleeping there. How many more are in the church I wonder, ones who unlike the one who was caught, have not registered?

  48. “A sex offender sneaked in (probably because he lied), was discovered, and removed.”

    How was SHARE duped when they don't screen for sex offenders?

    Do you mean when SHARE does its 'look 'em in the eye' screening, he duped them by not 'looking like a level 3 child rapist'?

  49. “otherwise at large in your neighborhood for that matter”

    So we should just throw up our hands and let SHARE open a Level 3 child rapists housing center in the middle of our neighborhood, near schools and day care because we have no control over the streets? How many rapists are you will to have live next door to you I wonder?

  50. Yep, scary, which is why we are vigilant and will fight to stop these people sneaking into our neighborhood.

    You don't like that? then why don't you move to a nice crime ridden neighborhood where people don't give a damn. I can recommend a few where people would ignore all kinds of criminal activity, you'd be free as a bird.

  51. You know what, my wife was raped many years ago by a stranger, in a parking lot, holding a gun to her head. Now she's a strong, tough woman who has put this behind her, but she is pissed as hell this was allowed to happen near her home.

    Maybe you should come over to my place and try being so flippant to her. Tell her she's being paranoid. Tell her she's over reacting.

    Otherwise, STFU.

  52. It was wrong how SHARE played this but to close the shelter because of it will only put a lot of innocent people on the street again. They aren't all sex offenders.

  53. “They aren't all sex offenders”

    Well, until they are willing to run checks, how are we to know? And what if there is only 1 more rapist? What's the acceptable threshold of unregistered child rapists I am supposed to accept, unsupervised, unregistered, in my neighborhood? Will you let me know?

  54. “So we should just throw up our hands and let SHARE open a Level 3 child rapists housing center”

    Of course not. It's not what they're doing.

    And to answer your question as to how many rapists am I willing to live next to. None. But that isn't realistic. There are rapists in my neighborhood, too. I don't like them. I wish they weren't there. What can I do? How far away can I run and not be near criminals?

  55. I'm glad your wife was able to recover from something that is likely every woman's nightmare. I know it is one of mine. And I know it can happen anywhere, my neighborhood, your neighborhood… It doesn't make me feel very good. I wish all sex offenders were locked up permanently.

  56. ” I know it can happen anywhere, my neighborhood, your neighborhood”

    So why not put out the welcome matt to unregistered offenders.

    Thanks for the crocodile tears, from both of us. My wife, like me, thinks people like you are part of the problem with your BS moral relativism.

  57. And that's where you differ from most responsible citizens around here. Most of us don't condone the lifestyle choice that fouls our parks, yards, and doorways with human excrement, that leaves beer cans and needles in the bushes, that get up in our faces about giving them a dollar, etc.
    The difference too is that if you're homeless by choice you, are, a, bum. We have enough of them around here and we don't need more.
    Homeless who are down on their luck or need some help getting back up we don't really have a problem with, and most of those you wouldn't even recognize on the street as being homeless.

  58. If I go to a crowded park, blindfold myself, and then announce that “I don't intend to cut anyone.” and then start blindly swinging a pair of swords while running around blindfolded, would I be let off the hook because I said I didn't intend to cut anyone?
    SHARE is dealing with a population that is known to have at least 400 registered sex offenders among it. By simple odds they would have a few come by the shelter and they knew this. By refusing to do a real screening test they knew that they would then house sex offenders. This was the issue the neighbors had with SHARE at the outset.

  59. Teddie….couldn't you just shut up? You are annoying and full of BS. Why don't you offer a solution instead of just ranting incessantly? Pick a neighborhood to move all these people too…

  60. I see your point but the odds aren't in SHARE's favor on this. There are over 400 sex offenders registered as “homeless” so there's a good chance a few will wind up in the SHARE shelter. They can do one of two things, admit that they will house a few sex offenders from time to time or run background checks. Heck, even just printing out the list of 400 and cross referencing the guys who come in would do the trick, but they won't even do that.

  61. Who said move it? I said SHARE must check for sex offenders. Simple solution that others have even offered to pay for.

    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.

  62. you're quite the job. please site your resources from your first paragraph supporting your claims please. and i'm rather curious as to how you know SO much about the topic.

  63. Yes – he was a convicted, registered sex offender. Just sayin'. But if people feel they need to spout on about how we should all be kind to sex offenders it is a free country with free speech. But having been raped myself, I don't feel a lot of sympathy for rapists and that isn't going to change. Oh well.

  64. Yes, I understand that. But what of those in this shelter who are not sex offenders? I think SHARE messed this one up, and because of their inability to do this one simple thing neighbors asked of them, despite having a level 3 uncovered in this shelter, this shelter will likely be forced to close. There is no win here for the shelter.

  65. I don't like how SHARE handled this either. But there are people in this shelter who are not sex offenders. And because of SHARE's idiocy and pig headedness they will be forced onto the street again if the shelter is forced to close. That is not right.
    Closing the shelter will do more harm than good.

  66. The same people that came-out in support of SHARE when they proposed this plan.

    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.

  67. It's easy to be morally relativistic when ones only experience of rapists and pedophiles is academic. That kind of BS drives me nuts. Protecting our children so they don't become another statistic is not open for sociological debate in my opinion and I don't give people like bellie the time of day.

  68. I don't think teddie is full of BS – I think SHARE is full of BS. If the shelter gets closed because they lied and were caught that is THEIR FAULT. And the innocent folks who lose their shelter from it will suffer because of SHARE's actions. I think it's ridiculous to let a group like SHARE act this way and use these poor homeless guys at the Calvary building as collateral in order to not have to be honest and upstanding.

  69. Just wanted to add a couple things to this conversation. First of all, homeless level 3 sex offenders are often level 3 just because of the fact that they are homeless. Level 2 sex offenders are bumped up to a level 3 when they are homeless. Secondly, sex offenders who have housing or shelter are less likely to re-offend than those who have nowhere to go. Whether we are aware of it or not they are amongst us. Denying sex offenders or anybody something as basic as shelter does not benefit anyone.

  70. But the law states that Level 3 offenders cannot be withing a certain distance to schools and daycares. Whether you agree with it or not Our Redeemers and SHARE agreed not to provide shelter for sex offenders due to the concerns of the neighbors.

    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.

  71. Surely to God you are not serious? NAMBLA???????? Do your friends and neighbors know about you? Children are children. While we need to try to protect them, it must be done utilizing facts, science, common sense, and with respect to the Constitution and respect for INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. Not hysterical, knee jerk reaction which invariably leads to making the problem worse, doing more harm than good.

  72. “Closing the shelter will do more harm than good.”

    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.

  73. For those of you that aren't sure what a level 3 sex offender is.

    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.”

  74. That's EXACTLY what was said…..but I am sure they have either forgotten they
    said it, or they'll come up with a lame excuse to keep doing what they are doing: endangering our neighborhood

  75. I have an idea:
    Why don't the worshippers start an “Adopt a Bum” program? They sign up, SHARE sends them a bum. No picking from pictures, no background info. Bum stays at their house at the hours required by SHARE. Bum can use the bathroom or microwave. If bum leaves a mess, is disorderly, steals, or rapes, worshipper can have the bum removed and SHARE sends them a new one…..
    How many worshippers would put up with that? I can already hear it: “Oh no, not in MY house!”

  76. what a great christian attitude on display here church. your god and savior would be proud. remind me who was it your jesus hung out with?

    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.

  77. …and what if one had a drug problem, and what if one sold drugs, and what if one drove drunk once, and what if one doesn't call their mom on her birthday??

    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.

  78. SHARE is setting itself up for a huge lawsuit and deservedly so what with their caviler attitude about level 3 sex offenders.

  79. well, be that as it may, SHARE said it wouldn't and doesn't house sex offenders – or level three at least – but lo and behold they were housing one.

    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.

  80. As I understand it (and I may be wrong here, I'm going off of other people's posts…) it is illegal for a level 3 sex offender to reside within X distance of schools and/or daycares. So, while I agree that it is the appropriately Christian thing to do to give a another chance, part of that next chance means _not_ living within X distance of schools and/or daycares. That is, _don't_ violate your parole (thereby breaking the law- again). I would also wonder if, by allowing a shelter within X distance of schools and/or daycares without screening for level 3 sex offenders the church and/or SHARE could be abetting parole violation. Again, I don't know- I've never had a reason to look up this information.
    I think many people are also upset about being lied to by a preacher (pastor, priest, whatever- I don't really know the difference…) and being lied to by SHARE (although I get the feeling everyone kind of expected the latter…).

  81. What I don't get is why not help the ones that have no criminal records or drug problems first?

    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.

  82. A quick check of the King County sex offender registry shows 462 individuals listed as “HOMELESS.”

    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.

  83. A sex offender didn't just “sneak in”. This child rapist had been in jail YET AGAIN (original crime was committed in 2005) and 4 days after being released from jail checked into this shelter.
    SHARE has their resident sex offenders register as “homeless” so that way there is no address and they can plead ignorance since they don't run the checks at this location. For whatever reason, this sex offender/child rapist actually provided the address of where he was staying.
    SHARE got caught doing what they do best, which is lying. They refused to run sex offender checks at this location, even though they run them at other SHARE locations. Why would they refuse to run them unless they knew they had sex offenders there?

Leave a Reply