[per loin]

It's not a case of finding convenient housing, but of writing coherent law. As a quick exercise, I did a few rough calculations for the city I live in. The city extends over 48 square miles. A circle of 2000 foot radius encloses an area of .45 square miles. Ignoring for the moment, overlap and closest-possible-packing difficulties, my city consists of an area equal to about 107 such circles. My city has 56 public schools, and about 60 listed day care centers, plus private schools, church schools, employer provided day cares etc. In short, the theoretical area enclosed within the "banning" circles exceeds the area of the city. In practical terms what this likely means is that there are a few small areas in my city in which sex offenders could live if we had such a law here. What happens to the property values in such areas? Does the State of Iowa reimburse property owners in such sections in Iowa cities? Or do the property owners in such areas set up a small day care center to protect their property values?

[sit-rep]

It's obvious to me you don't have kids, or, want kids in a not so normal fashion...

[ChicagoHebrew]

Not true. What would happen is that a parent in the area would start a small daycare center in their home or a local store, and kick sex offenders out of this neighborhood too. In fact, whereever a sex offender chose to live (other than maybe an isolated rural farm), someone would start one.

[FreedomCalls]

A circle of 2000 foot radius encloses an area of .45 square miles.

Most house lots exceed that size here in my area of Texas. Such a law would have little effect here.

[sarasmom]

Do you also think that permanent restrictions on released from incarceration convicted felons, ie voting rights, potential future job opportunities, and gun ownership are too onerous and constitute excessive punishment?

Trying to see your angle here.