SACRAMENTO — A ballot measure aiming to restrict where paroled sex offenders may live could drive thousands of them from their homes and place an enormous burden on government, which may have to pay to house the displaced, a draft report by the state corrections department says.
The report, obtained by The Times, outlines an array of costs and other consequences that the measure, Proposition 83, could bring for parolees and the communities to which they return after leaving prison.
The initiative has a strong lead in the polls, and corrections officials have forecast several scenarios based on the assumption that it will pass. The scenarios could change, officials said, depending on legal interpretations of the measure -- specifically, which sex offenders are covered.
The chief proponent, state Sen. George Runner (R-Lancaster), said Thursday that he never intended for the initiative to uproot sex offenders already living in a community. It would apply only, he said, to "those people rolling out of prison in the future."
But the measure's language is unclear on that point, and corrections officials, who have been under fire for their management of sex offenders in the past, say they are making preparations based on the most conservative reading.
The initiative would bar registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park. Maps prepared by the state Senate show that virtually all of San Francisco and much of Los Angeles would be off limits.
Corrections officials say about 5,500 people now on parole, including 2,400 in Los Angeles County, could be covered by the residency restrictions and be forced to move.
That, the report says, could create an upheaval that would cause disturbing ripple effects.
"Most parolees will be unable to secure housing and many will be forced to leave their families and quit their jobs," the report says. "They will no longer have the ability to be financially responsible for their families and this burden will fall to the local communities."
Housing the displaced parolees would cost $11 million a month -- a cost that state and county governments might have to bear to prevent large numbers of parolees from becoming transients. Even if such housing aid is offered, the report said, many parolees "will simply choose to abscond supervision, as has happened in states such as Iowa with similar laws. This will place the community at greater risk."
