The Westbrook City Council expanded the scope of a proposed sex offender ordinance Monday, increasing the size of the areas where sex offenders would be barred from living and adding to an already lengthy list of restricted zones.

The proposed ordinance, which appears to be headed toward unanimous approval, would effectively make the city off limits to convicted sex offenders.

While keeping sex offenders out of the community is an appealing thought to most people, Westbrook’s ordinance goes too far in its restrictions and does little to actually solve the problem – finding an effective way to keep children safe from sex offenders. Studies suggest residential restrictions drive sex offenders underground, where they are much more difficult to monitor and have less access to social services that can assist them.

City councilors seemed to be searching Monday for any way to restrict more of the city. The intent was clear: Let’s keep sex offenders out of Westbrook. While that is probably a desirable goal – particularly for parents with young children – going to far with these residential restrictions could make the city’s ordinance a target for a court challenge.

The state and local police already have fairly effective practices for dealing with sex offenders. All convicted offenders in Maine are listed on the state’s Sex Offender Registry, a public list that’s available on the Maine State Police Web site. When sex offenders move into a community, they are required by law to notify the local police department. Police then consider the crimes of sex offenders, whether they pose a threat to the community and decide whether to notify neighbors of the presence of a new offender.

In most cases, police err on the side of caution, notifying neighbors even if they believe an offender poses little risk. These offenders often appear in the news, particularly if neighbors object to their presence, which they quite commonly do. In other words, the presence of a sex offender in a residential neighborhood is rarely a secret. And, it shouldn’t be. It allows neighbors to take any precautions they feel might be necessary to protect their children.

In addition to these precautions, Westbrook’s ordinance would restrict sex offenders from living within 2,500 feet of a long list of public and private properties, including public and private schools, day cares, parks, movie theaters, dance studios and bowling alleys.

Communities have started adopting ordinances like these following the odyssey of Joseph Tellier, a convicted sex offender who was chased out of community after community in southern Maine. Tellier, who died of natural causes last week, faced public protests in nearly every community where he moved after being released from prison.

After the Legislature vowed to address the matter of where sex offenders could live and then did little, some local councils have decided to try to address the problem. While most ordinances attempt to keep sex offenders from living near schools, Westbrook’s would go much further, restricting offenders from living almost anywhere near public or private properties where children might be.

This will likely drive them to other communities because many of the remaining places wouldn’t be viable places for people being released from prison to live, often because they wouldn’t be able to afford to live there. While driving offenders to other communities might be just what Westbrook wants to do, it does little to answer the toughest question: Where should they live?

Brendan Moran, editor