Sex Offender Home Meeting

Sex Offender Home Meeting

Story Options

According to the Rev. Terry King of Saving Grace Ministries, the initiative by the Division of Parole to create a group home for level 3 sex offenders at 31 Tonawanda Street makes perfect sense, "These are people who would be allowed to get apartments anywhere they like without being monitored in any way. We're talking about taking the next busload to a group home where they would be under near constant supervision. GPS does work."

This sentiment was in direct opposition to the crowd of residents who poured into the Northwest Community Center for last night's meeting addressing the issue. More and more rows of chairs had to be added for the crowd of more than 150. After opening remarks by Richard Mack, publisher of the Riverside Review and member of the Black Rock/Riverside Good Neighbor Planning Alliance, those in attendance were invited to speak, called on by the numbers they were assigned upon arrival.

Sister Mary Beth runs a group home on Bailey Avenue for young women, aged 16 to 25, that is near other Saving Grace Ministry homes. She said that her young charges come from abusive situations, and are further abused via catcalls from the SGM resident men. "One of these men exposed himself to a girl who was waiting for a bus on the corner," she said. The sister then named some of the men, telling the crowd what their offenses were and noting the high risk of repeat offenses for level 3 offenders.

Of the nearly 50 people who got up to speak, some of the points brought up were the proximity to parks, schools, and the bike path. John Benson, who grew up in Black Rock, but now lives in North Buffalo, noted that the group home will be near railroad tracks that run through the city to the international border. Though he feels that every human deserves compassion, he stressed that he feels the home on Tonawanda Street is a bad idea. "When I was a kid, I could walk those tracks all the way to Linden and Crescent. What's going to stop them?" he asked.

Several residents said that they would move if Rev. King and Saving Grace Ministries were successful in this project. Many asked how Rev. King, a parolee himself, would feel if a home such as the one he has proposed were to be built next door to his house in Williamsville. Some of the women who stood to speak were themselves victims of rape and sexual abuse. Still others, not even aware whether King was in th room, chided him for the use of the title of reverend before his name.

king.jpg Rev. Terry King (center)

Jeff Benjamin, owner of The Viking Lobster Company on Tonawanda and Amherst Streets said that the economic fall-out from the proposed home would have an adverse effect on his business. "I share your problems. My clientele come from Clarence, East Amherst...about a fifty-mile radius. They have a certain perception of the area, asking, 'Will I be safe? Will my car be safe?' We reassure our customers, but remember that most of the [Altemio] Sanchez attacks took place right here on the railroad tracks," Benjamin said. "I looked at a Minnesota website on level three offenders. They shouldn't be in an urban setting, and the main problem is concentrating them." Citing the talks property owner Ed Hogle has had with Buffalo State College, he said, "There has to be a better use of this property. This could be the death knell for the local economics."

One prevailing sentiment brought up over and over again was the fact that the Black Rock/Riverside area has worked very hard in recent years to improve quality of life issues for its citizens, and that this would be a tremendous set-back to an area that was home to many businesses and families. A law student named Jennifer stood and said that she was new to the neighborhood, that she'd done her grad work researching level 3 offenders, and that they couldn't be rehabilitated. "I want to buy a house here. My friends want to buy houses. The neighborhood is growing. They're getting grants. This home will be a liability," she concluded.

crowd.jpg

Two members of the city zoning board were present. Warren Glover and Anthony Diina made the meeting, the Rev. Dr. James Lewis had another appointment, and Joseph Pandolfino and William Collins were unable to attend, though Glover said they would be well informed by the December 19th meeting that will decide whether a zoning change would be granted. At present, the parcel is zoned M2 for industrial purposes. Within city zoning laws, a facility such as the one proposed would have to be 1,500 feet from certain entities that cater to children. Presently, even if residential use were granted, the facility would be within 1,500 feet of a day care, and would require a variance.

In addition, the meeting was attended by Timothy Wanamaker Executive Director, Office of Strategic Planning; State Senator Antoine Thompson, Council Members Joseph Golombek and Dominic Bonifacio; and William Parke Community Planner, Office of Strategic Planning. Assemblyman Sam Hoyt submitted a letter in his absence that in essence said, "The zoning board can stop this."

Rev. King didn't speak during the meeting, saying, "It's all been said." Conceding that this is a highly charged issue, King said, "It's time to sit down, take a breath and focus on the overall issues."

The McCarthy family took one of the shortest turns at the microphone. While his wife sat in the audience, the young father brought his two small children to the front of the room. As for not wanting the home in his neighborhood, "These, are my two reasons," he said.

McCarthy.jpg

The McCarthys

Rock Harbor

What Others Have To Say

  1. Arete

    3 ratings12345
    Nov 29th 2007, 12:57

    the idea of putting this next to an urban college campus strikes me as outrageous, in addition to the effects of the rest of the neighborhood - and within blocks of the museum and historical society?! think of the repercussions for the nature of the neighborhood and the ongoing effects for the area. At least when I lived downtown, they were scattered throughout the neighborhood, diffusing their presence. Am I being nieve?

  2. STEEL

    4 ratings12345
    Nov 29th 2007, 13:07

    So it is interesting that this reverend lives in Williamsville but proposes the facility in Buffalo. Why is Buffalo the first and only place considered for these kinds of facilities. I think Williamsville would be a perfectly appropriate place for this facility.

  3. galaxyjay

    2 ratings12345
    Nov 29th 2007, 13:29

    I love how the tax-paying society has to worry about scummers like this..Erg...I apologize for my ignorant comments but I get extremely frusterated..

  4. scooter

    2 ratings12345
    Nov 29th 2007, 13:33

    Why is Buffalo the first place considered?

    Because it's close to services such as a bus route, medical, affordable housing, government branches, jobs, ect! Isn't that what these facilities look for?

    Aren't these things that can be found in amherst, williamsville, cheektowaga, tonawanda?

    I live in Amherst, I sure don't want one of these in my neighborhood, but it's completely unfair to dump all of these types of places in the city. I'm fairly certain that the sex offenders aren't all from Buffalo, I would bet that a large percentage of these "patients" are from the burbs.

    Is it because suburban residents vote in larger #'s then city residents?

  5. ElmwoodBoy

    2 ratings12345
    Nov 29th 2007, 15:25

    Spread them evenly around the area; house them in vacant hospital space. 10 or 15 each at ECMC, Kenmore Mercy, Millard, DeGraff, NFMC, Sisters, Buffalo General, etc.... No new construction required, security and rehabilitation services available. Not run by an organization with no/little experience at this headed by an ex-con

  6. pcnorth22

    0 ratings12345
    Nov 29th 2007, 15:53

    I was there last night...I think the issue is pretty clear-cut for the zoning board and their refusal to permit a variance should be forthcoming...

    having said that...i was a little annoyed at rep's in attendance (or in attendance via staff members) who called on the zoning board to do their part and reject the request for a variance...these state officials are the ones who should be working with the NY State Parole Board about how we effectively and safely integrating these people back into our communities...

    if we're gonna let them out...we have to integrate them back in our communities, in a safe and effective way...

    the state reps should be taking the lead on this, or the problem will keep coming back...

    and how is SUNY not stepping in here? not just Buff St., but SUNY itself...the SUNY Chancellor should have been there last night...and he/she too should be meeting with the Parole Division making it clear that such a place by Buff St. or any SUNY school is unacceptable...

  7. BAEagen

    1 ratings12345
    Nov 29th 2007, 16:25

    Rev. King made a point when he submitted this proposal to GNPA in September.....He stated the same thing THREE times while questioned at the Zoning Board meeting......He claims that after a year and a half of researching, that this site on Tonawanda Street is the ONLY site in Erie County that meets the criteria for this facility. There just isn't anything stupider that's been said. I hope the Zoning Board gets a clear message about this proposal from last night's meeting, the emails and written statements.....Black Rock/Riverside community residents and leaders have worked too hard and are too committed to the neighborhood to let this facility spawn in our neighborhood.

  8. heather_b

    2 ratings12345
    Nov 29th 2007, 20:41

    NIMBY! I would rather live nextdoor to murderers than sex offenders but I would rather live next door to sex offernders than loud and unruly college kids.

  9. JohnB

    2 ratings12345
    Nov 29th 2007, 22:20

    Heather-b with all due respect, that's one the most naive comments yet.... Also, its rather sad that the post about this important meeting has only eight comments, when one about Trader Joes/Whole Foods has sixty.

    -John Benson

  10. Andrew

    2 ratings12345
    Nov 29th 2007, 22:23

    I too question why they must be located in the city.

  11. sbrof

    2 ratings12345
    Nov 29th 2007, 22:42

    I second steel, sex offenders, like the impoverished are a larger social problem to be borne by society at large. We all pay for social security and have senior citizens homes everywhere, why should negatively viewed issues be "city" only issues. The lack of a proper upbring and role models are probably a part of the reason these people got to be the way they are, housing them in a concentration camp doesn't to them or us any good.

  12. urbanesque

    2 ratings12345
    Nov 29th 2007, 23:29

    We would be hard-presed to find a community anywhere who would welcome a house full of convicted sexual offenders. I remember a similar debate and townhall meeting that toko place in Williamsville, probably 25 years ago, over the development of a group home for mentally handicapped adults that was implemented just a few doors down from Williamsville South High School. There were a couple dozen members of the community who cited studies and pulled on our heart strings over the dangers associated with having "these people" in our community. There has yet to be an incident in the past 20+ years that they have been in business.

    This is a weak parallel, but at the time there was a stigma placed on the mentally handicapped that was tough to get past. Today it is no longer PC to voice an opinion like this. In some sense sexual offenders are all viewed in the same light by the community, they are seen through the lens of the worse case scenario, the predator pedophile or serial rapist. This is what comes to the communitie's mind and this is what people were discussing outside of the town hall meeting.

    We have created an undersirable class that will not be welcome anywhere, and that is a problem for many of the men and women who are designated as a sexual offender. We have limited their chances of finding employment, a place to live, and other chances that other citizens have. Many of these people have already paid their debts to society and should be allowed to carry on with their lives like any other ex-convict. I have yet to see the list of ex-convicts who served time for assault, DWI, Murder, or selling drugs, and they have as much of a negative impact on our community as the sexual offernders. Why pick and choose? Why ostricize only one group?

    The answer isn't to share the burden between the suburbs and the city. The answer isn't to have the city shoulder the entire burden. The answer is to figure out how to integrate ex-convicts into the community in a way that ensures the safety and welfare of all residents.

Would you like to subscribe to this conversation?

Enter your email below, and you will receive an alert each time someone leaves a comment on this post.

What Do You Think?

Text Links