The closing of 3215 Sixth Avenue has once again generated talk about sex offenders living in Troy. The common theme in many of the complaints, including letters to the editor in The Record and comments on the Troy Polloi, is Loudonville!
Apparently, many Trojans want Loudonville to be the destination of choice for sex offenders.* What isn't discussed is how Loudonville residents feel about such a solution. We thought we'd find out.
The Troy Polloi surveyed 210 Loudonville residents. The finding are startling.
1. How do you feel about convicted sex offenders living in Loudonville?
56% - Ick!
32% - Eeewwww!
9% - Fine, as long as they don't live in Loudonville
3% - It's Okay as long as they're from Troy
2. Would you want a convicted sex offender living in your neighborhood?
97% - No
3% - Yes, if they're from Troy
3. Would you want a convicted sex offender living next door to you?
95% - No!
5% - Hell no!
The results indicate that an overwhelming majority of Loudonville residents do not want convicted sex offenders living in Loudonville, not even if they're from Troy. Perhaps we're not doing a good enough job of "selling" our sex-offenders. Maybe we need a professional Ad Campaign.
Guess that gets us back to square one and we can forget about the ridiculous notion of "sending" offenders to Loudonville. First of all, do you know how much that would cost in postage? The average sex offender weighs 176 lbs. That's a lot of postage.
Secondly, convicted sex offenders can live where they want. If you don't like that, start contacting your State Legislators.
No one wants sex offenders in the neighborhood, but the "Not in My Back Yard" mentality gets us nowhere. Most sex offenders have a difficult time finding, and keeping, employment. That conviction does not look good on a resume. Do you really think they're going to rent a condo in Loudonville or invest in a home off of Route 9? No, they're going to live where they can get more bang for their buck: Troy, Watervliet etc.
What we can do is ignore some of our knee-jerk reactions and listen to the experts and law enforcement on how to mitigate they dangers they pose, even if those suggestions appear to look like they accommodate the offender. That means keeping them together when possible, in order to maximize law enforcement resources, not hounding them from their jobs (if they have a job) and driving them further underground and ensuring they're in a monitored program.
Loudonville is not an option.
*Whence the animosity towards Loudonville? Perhaps it stems from the days when Loudonville troops occupied Troy during Reconstruction.